heri fac2011-monograph

Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey

Sylvia HurtadoKevin EaganJohn H. PryorHannah WhangSerge Tran

Higher Education Research InstituteGraduate School of Education & Information StudiesUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Higher Education Research Institute University of California, Los Angeles

Sylvia Hurtado, Professor and Director

HERI Affiliated ScholarsWalter R. Allen, Allan Murray Cartter Professor of Higher EducationAlexander W. Astin, Founding Director and Senior ScholarHelen S. Astin, Senior ScholarMitchell J. Chang, ProfessorM. Kevin Eagan Jr., Assistant Professor in ResidencePatricia M. McDonough, ProfessorJosé Luis Santos, Assistant ProfessorLinda J. Sax, ProfessorRick Wagoner, Assistant ProfessorVictor B. Sáenz, Assistant Professor, University of Texas at Austin

The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) is based in the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. The Institute serves as an interdisciplinary center for research, evaluation, information, policy studies, and research training in postsecondary education.

CIRP Advisory Committee

Betsy O. Barefoot Vice President John N. Gardner InstituteVictor M. H. Borden Associate Vice President and Professor Indiana UniversityMark L. Gunty Assistant Director of Institutional Research University of Notre DameMarsha Hirano-Nakanishi Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic Research California State University Office of the ChancellorChristine M. Keller Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs Association of Public and Land Grant UniversitiesKurt J. Keppler Vice Chancellor for Student Life and Enrollment Services Louisiana State UniversityRandy L. Swing Executive Director Association for Institutional ResearchSylvia Hurtado Professor and Director, HERI (ex-officio)John H. Pryor Director, CIRP (ex-officio)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Cover design by Escott & Associates. Page layout and text design by The Oak Co. Manuscript editor, Carolyn Gray Anderson. Funding from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05) and the National Science Foundation (NSF Grant Number 0757076) supported this work.

Published by the Higher Education Research Institute. Suggested citation:

Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Pryor, J. H., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

To download additional copies of this monograph with expanded tables, please visit http://heri.ucla.edu/facPublications.php.

Copyright © 2012 By the Regents of the University of California

ISSN 2169-9887 / ISBN 978-1-878477-00-2 (paper, limited edition) ISSN 2169-9887 / ISBN 978-1-878477-03-3 (paper, print-on-demand) ISSN 2169-9895 / ISBN 978-1-878477-05-7 (online resource, expanded edition)

3005 Moore Hall/Mailbox 951521, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 www.heri.ucla.edu 310-825-1925

http://heri.ucla.edu/facPublications.php

www.heri.ucla.edu

iii

CONTENTS

List of Tables iv

List of Figures iv

Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey 1

The Survey Questionnaire 2

An Overview of the 2010–2011 Faculty Survey Norms 2

Top Sources of Stress among Faculty: Institutional, Gender, and Racial Differences 3

Student-Centered Pedagogical Practices in Undergraduate Classrooms: Field and Gender Differences 6

Declines in Time Spent Teaching Scheduled Classes and Preparing for Teaching 10

Part-Time Faculty: A Growing Phenomenon 10

Training the Next Generation of Faculty and Potential for Revitalization 14

Full-Time Undergraduate Faculty, Type of Institution and Control 17

Full-Time Undergraduate Faculty, by Rank 39

Appendix A: Research Methodology 61

Appendix B: 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey Questionnaire 73

Appendix C: Institutions Participating in the 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey 87

Appendix D: The Precision of the Normative Data and Their Comparisons 95

About the Authors 99

iv

Tables

1. Most Common Sources of Faculty Work-Life Stress, by Institutional Type 4

2. Major Gender Differences in Selected Sources of Stress 5

3. Major Racial Differences in Selected Sources of Stress 6

4. Faculty Approaches to Teaching and Evaluation, by Field and Gender 8

5. Reasons Why Part-Time Faculty Work Part-Time 12

6. Faculty Views and Involvement in Training and Revitalization, by Academic Rank 15

Figures

1. Source of Stress: Institutional Budget Cuts, by Institutional Type 3

2. Source of Stress: Subtle Discrimination, by Race 5

3. Gender Differences in Student-Centered Pedagogical Practices (2001–2011) 7

4. Gender Differences in Extensive Lecturing (2001–2011) 7

5. Student-Centered Pedagogy, by Class Size and Field 9

6. Faculty Trends in Time Spent Teaching Scheduled Classes and Preparing for Teaching 10

7. Part-Time Faculty’s Access to Institutional Resources 11

8. Part-Time Faculty and the Number of Additional Institutions at Which They Teach 13

9. Institutional Perspectives of Part-Time Faculty, by Status 14

1

UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING FACULTY: THE 2010–2011 HERI FACULTY SURVEY

This report summarizes the highlights of a national survey of college and university

faculty conducted by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at the

Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) in the 2010–2011 academic year. Although

HERI has been surveying faculty in higher education since 1978, this report is the eighth in

a series of faculty surveys administered on a triennial basis. We encourage institutions to

collect data on all their faculty, but histori-

cally we have chosen to focus on full-time

undergraduate (FTUG) teaching faculty for

our triennial reports. Institutions receive

reports for faculty respondents with

teaching, research, and administrative

responsibilities. However, students are

increasingly taught by part-time faculty in

institutions, particularly in introductory

courses (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Because of the important role that part-time faculty

play in teaching and learning, in 2007–2008, we developed a separate series of questions

for campuses to use with part-time faculty. This year’s report highlights specific items for

part-time faculty and full-time faculty separately, thereby retaining trends on the full-time

teaching workforce as well as providing new insights on the part-time academic workforce.

This year’s report

highlights specific items

for part-time and full-

time faculty separately.

2

Given current national interest in increasing the number of degree holders in science (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012), we also compare faculty in science, technology, engineering, and mathe-matics (STEM) with faculty in the humanities, social sciences, and professional fields (or “all other fields”). This is the first report on a national survey of undergraduate faculty at four-year institutions that offers a comparison across general disciplines, although campuses that receive HERI Faculty Survey data can always conduct these analyses independently. These comparisons are critical given that the federal government has not collected data on faculty since the 2004 administration of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF).

The results reported here are based on the responses from 23,824 full-time faculty members at 417 four-year colleges and universities. We separately report results from analyses of 3,547 part-time faculty members who were working at 266 four-year colleges and universi-ties. For this report, “faculty member” is defined as any employee of an accredited four-year college or university who spends at least part of his or her time teaching undergraduates.1 Data for full-time faculty are weighted to provide a normative national profile of full-time faculty at four-year colleges and universities; Appendix A contains details about methodological consid-erations, including how these weights were calculated. Complete results of the survey presented for full-time faculty are reported sepa-rately for male and female faculty in each of eight different normative groups: all institutions, public universities, private universities, public

1 Although surveys were also received from academic administrators and other types of respondents, only those who spend at least some of their time teaching undergraduates are included in the results reported here.

four-year colleges, and private four-year colleges (combined and broken down by three sub-groupings: nonsectarian, Roman Catholic and other religious). Survey data by academic rank are also reported in additional tables.

The Survey QuestionnaireThe 2010–2011 questionnaire was based

largely on items used in the seven previous faculty surveys, which were revised following the suggestions of HERI-affiliated researchers who are actively studying faculty concerns and topics related to teaching and learning. In addition to collecting demographic informa-tion, the web-based questionnaire focuses on topics such as how faculty spend their time, how they interact with students, their preferred methods of teaching, their perceptions of insti-tutional climate, their primary sources of stress and satisfaction, and their personal and profes-sional goals. In addition, we report on specific questions we introduced in 2007–2008 that pertain to the experiences of part-time faculty. The questionnaire also includes a section that allows individual institutions to ask their faculty up to 20 locally designed questions, though these campus-specific questions are not reported here.

An Overview of the 2010–2011 Faculty Survey Norms

In the following sections, we highlight results that pertain to the following topics for full-time faculty: top sources of stress among faculty, focusing on institution type, gender, and race differences; faculty’s use of student-centered pedagogical techniques in undergraduate class-rooms, with a focus on gender differences within STEM and within all other fields; trends in

3

faculty time spent teaching and preparing for teaching; and survey results that address the training of the next generation of faculty and potential for revitalization. A special focus on part-time faculty addresses the following topics: reasons why part-time faculty teach part-time at their current institution; how colleges and universities support part-time faculty; and key differences between “voluntary” and “involun-tary” part-time faculty with regard to perceptions of institutional support. Voluntary part-time faculty are defined as faculty who have no interest in full-time academic positions in colleges and universities, whereas involuntary part-time faculty are individuals currently teaching part-time but who prefer to teach full-time, or who recently have sought, or are seeking, full-time academic positions.

Top Sources of Stress among Faculty: Institutional, Gender, and Racial Differences

Researchers at HERI have been assessing different dimensions of faculty stress since 1989, and the Faculty Survey has been a source of information on stress source differences by gender, race/ethnicity, and tenure status (Dey, 1994; Thompson & Dey, 1998). Self-imposed high expectations and lack of personal time traditionally have been rated the most pervasive sources of stress among all faculty over the years. The 2010–2011 data show that 84.8% of full-time undergraduate faculty report that self-imposed high expec tations cause “some” or “extensive” stress, and 82.2% of faculty report the same for lack of personal time. These areas of stress are relatively

stable for faculty across institutional types; however, this year, we find that these sources of stress are rivaled by economic hardships affecting the conditions of work in public institutions. Institutional budget cuts were indicated as the top source of stress among faculty at public universities and at public four-year colleges, as 86.1% of full-time faculty at public universities and 83.4% of full-time faculty at public four-year colleges reported institutional budget cuts as causing “some” or “extensive” stress (see Figure 1). By contrast, less than half of full-time faculty at private universities (47.2%) and just 62.5% of faculty at private four-year colleges rated institutional budget cuts as a source of stress in the last two years.

Table 1 shows variation across institutional types with regard to faculty’s perspectives on institutional procedures and “red tape,” as a greater percentage of faculty at public institutions than at private institutions (three-quarters vs. two-thirds) rate institutional procedures and red tape as a source of stress. Although more than half of faculty at private universities (58.1%) report working with underprepared students as a source of stress, it is greatest among faculty at public four-year colleges, at 83.5%, followed by more

All

Private University

Public University

Private B.A. Granting College

Public B.A. Granting College

74.2

47.2

86.1

62.5

83.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 % of Faculty

Figure 1. Source of Stress: Institutional Budget Cuts, by Institutional Type (% of Faculty Reporting “Some” or “Extensive”)

4

than three-quarters of faculty working in public universities (78.1%) and private four-year colleges (77.1%). Faculty respon-dents at public four-year colleges are also more likely to report teaching load (71.2%), personal finances (70.1%), and committee work (67.4%) as sources of stress. Although these concerns are present among

faculty at private universities, they tend to be less pervasive. They may also be a function of the budget reductions impacting faculty since the last survey in 2007.2 Although most faculty reported that they were able to achieve a healthy balance between their personal and professional lives—with 32.1% believing they achieve this “to a great extent” and an additional 50.6% “to some extent”—the percentage who reported

2 See data pertaining to FTUG faculty, by institution type, for all 25 survey item responses related to sources of stress (p. 30).

that they were “not at all” balancing the two rose from 12.9% in 2004 to 17.3% in 2010.

Race and Gender Differences in Sources of Stress In the last report, we highlighted the greatest

gender differences within select stressors. More women than men reported lack of personal time, managing household responsibilities, self-imposed high expectations, concerns about job security, and subtle discrimination as sources of stress (DeAngelo et al., 2009). In 2010–2011, women reported more stress than men on 22 of the 25 survey items; several large differences in specific areas are also worth noting as a pattern (see Table 2, and also separate appendices for men and women faculty). In the arena of faculty work, roughly two-thirds of women (66.3%) compared with 56.8% of men report that students are a source of stress. More women than men report the review/promotion process as a source of stress (65.3% vs. 52.8%), and women are also significantly more likely than men to report change in work responsibilities as a preva-lent source of stress in the last two years (58.4% vs. 43.8%). In terms of caretaking and relationships, women faculty are also more likely

Table 1. Most Common Sources of Faculty Work-Life Stress, by Institutional Type

Four-Year Universities Colleges

Percentage reporting “some” or “extensive” All Public Private Public Private

Self-imposed high expectations 84.8 85.1 86.1 83.5 84.2

Lack of personal time 82.2 81.5 83.1 82.4 82.8

Working with underprepared students 75.3 78.1 58.1 83.5 77.1

Managing household responsibilities 74.7 74.4 72.7 75.1 77.3

Institutional budget cuts 74.2 86.1 47.2 83.4 62.5

Institutional procedures and “red tape” 71.3 75.5 66.8 73.6 63.5

Research or publishing demands 70.7 74.5 77.7 64.1 61.8

Personal finances 65.7 65.5 58.5 70.1 68.7

Teaching load 62.6 61.9 50.5 71.2 67.4

Committee work 62.0 60.9 56.0 67.4 64.6

Budget cuts were the top

source of stress among

faculty at public universities

and four-year colleges.

5

than men to report stress associated with child care (63.5% compared with over half of men 51.1%), being part of a dual career couple (58.7% vs. 44.1%), care of an elderly parent (56.0% for women and 46.1% for men), and dealing with children’s problems (54.6% vs. 44.1%). Job secu-rity remains an issue for more women than men, as only 22.3% of women faculty had attained the rank of full professor compared with 39.5% of male respondents at the time of the survey. Women faculty are also twice as likely as men (40.0% vs. 20.2%) to report subtle discrimination (e.g., preju-dice, racism, sexism) as a source of stress.

This year we also have broken out the stressor items by race and ethnicity, and Figure 2 shows subtle discrimination as a main area of stress that differs consider-ably according to faculty’s racial/ethnic background. Only about one-quarter (24.7%) of White faculty report subtle discrimination

as a source of stress, and 62.2% of these are women. Most notably, 63.6% of Black/African American faculty report subtle discrimination (e.g., prejudice, racism, sexism) as a source of stress, which is more than 20 points higher than for any other race identity group. The next most prominent group to report subtle discrimination as a source of stress is Latina/o faculty (42.6%) followed by more than one-third of American Indian, Asian, and

Table 2. Major Gender Differences in Selected Sources of Stress

Women Men % Point Percentage reporting “some” or “extensive” (N=13,010) (N=10,814) Difference

Lack of personal time 88.2 78.2 10.0

Students 66.3 56.8 9.5

Review/promotion process 65.3 52.8 12.5

Child care 63.5 51.1 12.4

Being part of a dual career couple 58.7 44.1 14.6

Change in work responsibilities 58.4 43.8 14.6

Care of elderly parent 56.0 46.1 9.9

Children’s problems 54.6 44.1 10.5

Job security 45.3 35.1 10.2

Subtle discrimination (e.g., prejudice, racism, sexism) 40.0 20.2 19.8

63.6

42.6 39.7 38.2 37.6

24.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Black Latina/o American Indian Asian Multiracial/ Multiethnic

White

% o

f Fac

ulty

Figure 2. Source of Stress: Subtle Discrimination, by Race (% of Faculty Reporting “Some” or “Extensive”)

6

Student-Centered Pedagogical Practices in Undergraduate Classrooms: Field and Gender Differences

The faculty survey provides useful informa-tion regarding faculty goals for undergraduate education, encouragement of habits of mind for lifelong learning, and the specific teaching and evaluation practices used in undergraduate classrooms. Teaching practices have differed significantly between male and female faculty, with women more likely to practice student-centered pedagogy. A decade ago, women were much more likely than men to use instructional methods such as class discussions (78.9% vs. 68.3%), cooperative learning (55.8% vs. 32.6%), and student presentations (45.2% vs. 30.4%) (Lindholm, Astin, Sax, & Korn, 2002). As might be expected, they were also much less likely than men to use extensive lecturing as an instructional method in their classes (34.1% vs. 54.6%). In this recent survey, we found that both women and men have increased their use of class discussions (88.0% for women and 78.3% for men), cooperative learning (68.8% and 48.5%, respectively), and student presentations (53.8% and 36.9%, respectively) in “all” or “most” of their courses (see Figure 3). However, extensive lecturing has remained fairly stable, with 33.8% of women and 52.7% of men reportedly using this method in all or most of their courses in 2010–2011 (see Figure 4).

multiracial/multiethnic faculty (who indicated two or more race/ethnicities).

Table 3 provides the findings for sources of stress by racial/ethnic identity of faculty. Significantly more American Indian (85.6%), multiracial (76.3%), Black (72.5%), and Latina/o faculty (69.2%) than White faculty (64.7%) reported stress associated with personal finances in the last two years. However, Black (68.6%) and Latina/o faculty (63.1%) were less likely than multiracial (80.5%) or White faculty (74.4%) to indicate that institutional budget cuts were sources of stress. Black and Latina/o faculty were also less likely to report being part of a dual career couple, institutional procedures and “red tape,” colleagues, or students as a source of stress compared to White faculty. Although their numbers are small, American Indian faculty were least likely to report that colleagues, faculty meet-ings, or students were sources of stress compared to other racial/ethnic groups.

Table 3. Major Racial Differences in Selected Sources of Stress

American Multiracial/ Percentage reporting White Indian Asian Black Latina/o Multiethnic “some” or “extensive” (N=20,016) (N=50) (N=1,093) (N=556) (N=479) (N=891)

Subtle discrimination 24.7 39.7 38.2 63.6 42.6 37.6

Being part of a 50.0 56.0 56.1 36.2 39.2 57.0 dual career couple

Committee work 63.2 64.8 51.6 48.4 55.9 62.9

Institutional procedures 72.2 55.4 64.0 61.2 60.9 74.7 and “red tape”

Colleagues 63.0 28.7 53.5 51.2 56.1 60.0

Faculty meetings 54.9 33.4 49.0 41.9 47.1 55.6

Students 61.8 45.4 59.6 52.7 47.4 60.0

Personal finances 64.7 85.6 62.6a 72.5 69.2 76.3

Institutional budget cuts 74.4 85.3a 75.9a 68.6 63.1 80.5a Indicates non-significant difference between White and specific race/ethnicity group.

More women than men report

the review/promotion process

as a source of stress.

7

More than differences by gender, pedagogical distinc-tions between fields have garnered national interest. In February 2012, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released the report Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The report is a call to action to reduce the dropout rate among college students studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in order to meet the economic and scientific needs of this country. A specific focus on improvement of undergrad-uate teaching in STEM, with the use of “evidence-based” practices, was noted as a leveraging point to encourage the production of more STEM graduates. Many of the teaching practices char-acterized as student-centered pedagogy increase student engagement in STEM introductory courses (Gasiewski, Eagan, Garcia, Hurtado, & Chang, 2012).

Highlighting survey items that constitute the CIRP construct of student-centered pedagogy used in HERI studies of undergraduate education,3 Table 4 shows patterns of faculty behavior

3 http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/constructs/FAC2010Appendix.pdf.

34.1

54.6

33.8

52.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Women 2001–2002

Men 2001–2002

Women 2010–2011

Men 2010–2011

78.9

55.8

45.2

68.3

32.6 30.4

88.0

68.8

53.8

78.3

48.5

36.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Class Discussions Cooperative Learning Student Presentations

% o

f F

acu

lty

Women2001–2002

Men 2001–2002

Women2010–2011

Men 2010–2011

Figure 3. Gender Differences in Student-Centered Pedagogical Practices (2001–2011) (% of Faculty Who Use Method in “All” or “Most” of Their Courses)

Figure 4. Gender Differences in Extensive Lecturing (2001–2011) (% of Faculty Who Use Method in “All” or “Most” of Their Courses)

regarding student-centered pedagogy and general field of study by gender. First, it should be noted that faculty in all other fields outside of STEM use more student-centered teaching practices. Second, the gender differences in use of student-centered pedagogy are greater for faculty teaching in STEM than in all other fields, with only three exceptions: using student evaluation of each others’ work, group projects, and student-selected topics for course content.

http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/constructs/FAC2010Appendix.pdf

http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/constructs/FAC2010Appendix.pdf

8

In terms of specific teaching practices, both men (69.7%) and women (50.4%) teaching in STEM fields are more likely to use extensive lecturing in all or most of their classes compared to their male (43.7%) and female (27.8%) colleagues in all other fields. Use of extensive lecturing in class has been shown to negatively affect student outcomes, such as engagement and achievement (Astin, 1993). In addition to using this less student-centered approach, faculty in STEM are also more likely than their counter-parts in all other fields to grade on a curve, which disguises the actual changes in learning and acquisition of skills of individual students.

Male faculty in STEM are by far the most likely to use curve grading, as 30.6% report doing so in all or most of their courses, nearly double the proportion of female faculty in STEM who report doing the same.

By contrast, cooperative learning is a teaching practice that has the most well-defined literature base, and research consistently has revealed posi-tive effects of cooperative learning on student achievement across experimental and quasi-experimental studies on college students (for a review of meta-analytic syntheses, see Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). It is important to note, however, that we see the starkest gender gaps across fields in faculty’s use of cooperative learning. The majority of women in all other fields (71.8%) use cooperative learning tech-niques in all or most of their courses, and it is encouraging that 60.3% of women teaching in STEM use cooperative learning in the class-room, a figure that exceeds both men in STEM (40.7%) and men in all other fields (52.6%). Faculty’s use of experiential learning/field studies and group projects have the most consistency across fields (a difference of two percentage

Table 4. Faculty Approaches to Teaching and Evaluation, by Field and Gender

STEM (N= 6,768) All Other Fields (N=17,056)

Methods used in “all” or Women Men % Point Women Men % Point “most” courses taught (N=2,721) (N=4,047) Difference (N=8,093) (N=8,963) Difference

Extensive lecturing 50.4 69.7 –19.3 27.8 43.7 –15.9

Grading on a curve 16.6 30.6 –14.0 9.8 16.2 –6.4

Student presentations 42.8 25.5 17.3 57.7 42.9 14.8

Student evaluations of each 17.5 9.7 7.8 30.5 20.5 10.0 others’ work

Class discussions 72.2 55.9 16.3 93.7 90.0 3.7

Cooperative learning 60.3 40.7 19.6 71.8 52.6 19.2 (small groups)

Experiential learning/field 33.1 22.9 10.2 30.6 21.2 9.4 studies

Group projects 36.0 27.1 8.9 38.1 28.7 9.4

Student-selected topics for 13.9 10.8 3.1 27.0 20.5 6.5 course content

Reflective writing/journaling 16.7 4.1 12.6 27.9 17.1 10.8

Using student inquiry to 43.3 32.9 10.4 54.2 46.9 7.3 drive learning

It should be noted that

faculty in all other fields

outside of STEM use

more student-centered

teaching practices.

9

points); however, a fairly stable gender gap of 9–10 percentage points persists within major fields. All teaching and student evaluation prac-tices used by faculty respondents are reported in the appendices by type of institution and gender.

One question that typically arises is whether student-centered teaching practices are largely a reflection of class size. We examined respon-dents’ reported class size of general education classes or classes taught that are required for the major to determine how size is associated with student-centered practices used by STEM faculty and those teaching in all other fields. There are significant correlations between average course size and types of student-centered practice used in courses across fields. In general, the magnitude of the correlation was smaller in STEM than in all other fields, which suggests that it is possible to use particular student-centered pedagogical practices within larger STEM classes. The smaller correlation between class size and student-centered pedagogical practices may also be a result of the fact that STEM faculty tend to use student-centered pedagogy less often than their colleagues in all other fields, regardless of the size of the class. Figure 5 shows two regression lines that demonstrate that faculty in both STEM and in all other fields tend to use student-centered pedagogy less often as average class size in general education courses increases; although the decrease is much more significant among faculty in all other fields, we should note that a much smaller proportion of faculty in all

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1–25 51–75 101–125 151–175 201–225 251–275 301–325 351–375 401 or More

Stud

ent-C

ente

red

Peda

gogy

C

onst

ruct

Sco

re

General Education Class Size

STEM

All Other Fields

Figure 5. Student-Centered Pedagogy, by Class Size and Field

other fields teaches general education classes that exceed 25 students. Although not shown here, the trend is similar when considering the average size of courses required for the major.

One particular student-centered practice did not follow this trend and, in fact, was positive. Experiential learning/field studies had the largest positive correlation (0.14, p=<0.01) with the average course enrollment in STEM general education courses, indicating that, as average class size increased in STEM general education courses, STEM faculty tended to incorporate experiential learning more frequently. This corre-lation was negative for faculty in all other fields. It may be that faculty consider the lab compo-nents of many introductory science courses to fall within the realm of experiential learning.

Faculty state that they sometimes find it diffi-cult to change their teaching practices because of large class sizes. A preliminary analysis indicates there may be opportunities for change in spite of large course enrollments in STEM. Further research is necessary to confirm results in various course and institutional contexts.

10

week, which is roughly the equivalent of one scheduled course per week. This percentage has more than doubled in the last decade from 7.0% in 2001–2002 to 15.8% in 2010–2012. The dramatic shift may be caused by furloughs and reduction of course sections, which institutions have implemented to respond to budget constraints. Figure 6

shows the trends, since 1989, in faculty’s sched-uled teaching and the time they spend preparing for classes.

A considerable drop—from 65.6% to 59.1%—in the last three years in the amount of time spent in preparation for teaching (more than nine hours per week) also mirrors the decline in scheduled teaching hours. Time spent in preparation for teaching has shown smaller changes over the years, but the trend illustrates a consistent yet modest decline in the percentage of faculty spending nine or more hours preparing for teaching, which corresponds with less scheduled teaching. More research needs to be conducted, since these data focus on full-time faculty. However, these changes in the time allo-cated for teaching activities may have much to do with the rise in the use of part-time faculty to teach classes across institutions, which also repre-sents a budget reduction measure.

Part-Time Faculty: A Growing Phenomenon

Contingent faculty, defined as educators appointed to academic positions off the tenure track, now represent the majority of individuals holding academic appointments at colleges and universities, as institutions increasingly rely on the skills and talents of contingent faculty to be

Declines in Time Spent Teaching Scheduled Classes and Preparing for Teaching

For 20 years, HERI has monitored faculty trends in order to identify areas that may show significant changes in the nature of FTUG faculty work. One area to watch in the coming years is the amount of time faculty report they

spend teaching sched-uled classes (not determined by credit hours but rather by time spent in the class-room) and preparing for teaching. There has been a significant decline in time spent

teaching: The proportion of faculty reporting they spent nine hours or more per week teaching (roughly a quarter of their time) is currently 43.6%, which is a considerable decline from a high of 63.4% two decades ago and from 56.5% just 10 years ago. More important, the decline has been slow, except for a significant 11-percentage-point drop from the 54.7% of faculty who, in 2007–2008, reported they spent nine or more hours teaching scheduled classes. The data also show an increase in the number of faculty reporting they taught 1–4 hours per

There has been a

significant decline in

time spent teaching.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

% o

f Fac

ulty

Teaching Scheduled Classes Preparing for Teaching

1–4 Hours per Week 5–8 Hours per Week 9+ Hours per Week

Figure 6. Faculty Trends in Time Spent Teaching Scheduled Classes and Preparing for Teaching

11

Maisto, Merves, & Rhoades, 2012) notes that part-time faculty typically lack access to institu-tional resources and are often notified of their teaching schedule just one to three weeks before the start of the term. Our data underscore these concerns, as many part-time faculty typically lack office space, personal computer access, or an office phone and voicemail. Figure 7 shows the proportion of part-time faculty who reported having access to specific institutional resources. Not surprising but somewhat concerning is that just 18.4% of part-time faculty have use of a personal office at their current institution, and less than half of part-time faculty (47.7%) have a shared office. Additional analyses reveal that faculty’s answers to these separate items were not mutually exclusive, such that more than one-third of part-time faculty (36.3%) had no access to an office on campus, shared or private. Lack of office space restricts part-time faculty’s ability to meet privately with students before or after class and can inhibit their ability to make connections within their department, given their lack of a physical location in the daily life of the unit.

more flexible in the academic offerings on their campuses and to cut instructional costs (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Contingent faculty hold positions at all types of institutions and are most well-represented within community colleges. Contingent faculty include a diverse set of indi-viduals, such as full-time, non-tenure track faculty, part-time faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate teaching assistants. For the purposes of this report, we analyze only the responses of part-time faculty, excluding indi-viduals employed in other types of contingent academic positions. In the 2010–2011 adminis-tration of the survey, 3,547 part-time faculty at 266 four-year colleges and universities responded to these new items, and this section highlights some of the findings from those respondents. These data are not weighted to represent a national sample, and part-time faculty in public universities are underrepresented here (10% in this sample work in public universities, vs. 30% in public universities nationally). By contrast, part-time faculty working in private colleges are overrepresented in this sample (46% in this sample work in private colleges, vs. 34% in private colleges nationally).

Although studies have identified concerns with institutions’ increasing reli-ance on part-time faculty with regard to student outcomes (Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Jaeger & Eagan, 2011), researchers are careful to note that these concerns may result from a lack of support from institutions for part-time faculty. A recent report from the Center for the Future of Higher Education (Street,

89.8

47.7 42.1 42.0

18.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

An EmailAccount

SharedOffice Space

A Phone/Voicemail

A PersonalComputer

Use ofPrivate Office

% o

f Fac

ulty

Figure 7. Part-Time Faculty’s Access to Institutional Resources

12

Just more than two in five (42.0%) part-time faculty report having access to an institutionally provided personal computer on their campus, and a similar

proportion (42.1%) report having access to a campus phone and voicemail. The lack of access to a phone and voicemail may further restrict faculty from interacting with students outside of class or require that they provide students with their personal cell or home phone numbers. The results in Figure 7 show that most part-time faculty indicate that their institution provides them with an email account (89.8%). Overall, these findings suggest that institutions have important room for improvement in providing resources for these faculty to communicate and meet with students.

Research on part-time faculty has emphasized the need to consider the diversity within this group, as individuals work in part-time positions for different reasons (Gappa & Leslie, 1993). Some faculty may work part-time to supplement their income for their full-time career outside

academia whereas others work part-time in hopes of finding a full-time faculty position. Given this diversity, we considered two types of part-time faculty: voluntary and involuntary (Maynard & Joseph, 2008). Involuntary part-time faculty can be considered underemployed faculty who work part-time but actually desire full-time teaching positions. We define invol-untary part-time faculty as part-timers who indicated that they would prefer to work full-time at their current institution or had sought a full-time teaching position at their current insti-tution or elsewhere. Voluntary part-time faculty are individuals who had no interest in working in a full-time academic position at their current institution and who had never sought a full-time teaching position.

Table 5 shows differences between voluntary and involuntary part-time faculty with regard to the reasons why they teach part-time. Although two-thirds of voluntary part-time faculty (66.7%) report that their part-time position represents an important source of income for them, more than four in five (82.6%) of involuntary part-time faculty agree that their part-time teaching position represents an impor-tant source of income—which speaks to an

Table 5. Reasons Why Part-Time Faculty Work Part-Time

Vol. Invol. % Point Percentage marking “agree” or “agree strongly” (N=883) (N=2,664) Difference

My part-time position is an important source of 66.7 82.6 –15.9 income for me

Compensation is not a major consideration in 62.8 51.1 11.7 my decision to teach part-time

Part-time teaching is a stepping stone to a 23.7 58.6 –34.9 full-time position

My part-time position provides benefits (e.g., health 15.0 24.5 –9.5 insurance, retirement, etc.) that I need

Teaching part-time fits my current lifestyle 97.5 80.7 16.8

Full-time positions were not available 37.4 68.1 –30.7

My expertise in my chosen profession is relevant 96.4 97.9 –1.5 to the course(s) I teach

The majority of involuntary

part-time faculty envision

full-time college teaching

as their career.

13

important difference between voluntary and involuntary part-time faculty: Voluntary part-time faculty tend to supplement their income through teaching part-time while involuntary part- time faculty are much more financially dependent on these positions. This point becomes even more evident when considering that 62.8% of voluntary part-time faculty report that compensation is not a major consid-eration in their decision to teach part-time, whereas just more than half of involuntary part-time faculty (51.1%) say the same. Similarly, nearly all voluntary part-time faculty (97.5%) indicate that teaching part-time fits their current lifestyle; by contrast, 80.7% of involuntary faculty report that teaching part-time fits their current lifestyle.

More than twice as many involuntary part-time faculty as voluntary part-timers see their part-time position as a stepping stone to a full-time teaching position (58.6% vs. 23.7%), which demonstrates the academic career focus of involuntary part-time faculty. The majority of involuntary part-time faculty envision full-time college teaching as their career. Likewise, more than two-thirds of involuntary part-time faculty (68.1%) are teaching part-time simply because full-time teaching positions were not available; just more than a third of voluntary part-time faculty (37.4%) said the same.

Figure 8 confirms what other researchers (e.g., Street, Maisto, Merves, & Rhoades, 2012) have found with regard to involuntary part-time faculty: A number of involuntary part-time faculty string together many different part-time teaching positions. While 21.3% of voluntary

0

10

20

30

40

50

Voluntary Involuntary

Three or more Two One

% o

f Fac

ulty

Figure 8. Part-Time Faculty and the Number of Additional Institutions at Which They Teach

part-time faculty indicate that they taught part-time at one additional institution, 1.5 times as many involuntary part-time faculty report doing the same (30.1%). In addition, more than twice as many involuntary part-time faculty (11.6%) as voluntary part-time faculty (4.9%) report teaching part-time at two additional colleges and universities. Overall, more than a quarter of voluntary part-time faculty (28.6%) report holding part-time teaching appointments at multiple institutions, whereas just under half (45.5%) of involuntary part-time faculty have strung together multiple part-time teaching appointments. Working at multiple campuses involves navigating several different political and bureaucratic processes unique to each insti-tution and developing professional relationships with multiple sets of colleagues. Not only are involuntary part-time faculty more financially dependent on their part-time teaching positions, they are also more likely to have to piece together many different positions to make a career in college teaching.

Differences also exist between voluntary and involuntary part-timers in their opinions regarding part-time faculty at their institutions. Figure 9 shows that substantially more involun-tary part-time faculty (67.8%) than voluntary

14

have earned (or to be currently working on) terminal degrees. Given their disciplinary training, involuntary part-time faculty are likely assigned general education courses in their discipline while volun-tary part-time faculty, many of whom specialize in busi-ness and technical fields, are invited to teach upper- division courses (Maynard & Joseph, 2008).

A greater percentage of involuntary part-time faculty agree that part-timers lack job security. Nearly nine out of 10

(88.2%) involuntary part-time faculty report that part-timers have no guarantee of employ-ment security compared with 81.9% of voluntary part-time faculty. Additionally, voluntary part-time faculty are more likely than involun-tary part-time faculty to agree that part-timers are respected by their full-time colleagues (83.1% vs. 77.2%).

Training the Next Generation of Faculty and Potential for Revitalization

Full-time faculty members contribute to both the stability and change of an institution; there-fore, it is important for campuses to begin to plan for retirements, faculty mobility, and the development of the next generation of faculty. The survey provides information on faculty involvement in training or development and potential areas for revitalization. Findings in Table 6 show that just over two-thirds of associate professors and assistant professors

part-time faculty (52.6%) believe that part-time faculty rarely get hired into full-time positions at their institution. This difference likely connects with the fact that, by definition in these analyses, involuntary part-time faculty either prefer or have recently sought a full-time teaching posi-tion in higher education but have not had success in obtaining one. Although just more than half of voluntary part-time faculty (51.2%) agree that part-timers have primary responsi-bility for teaching introductory classes, 62.1% of involuntary part-time faculty feel the same. Many voluntary part-time faculty have careers outside academia, and institutions bring them in to teach specialized courses in their area of expertise. By contrast, involuntary part-time faculty tend to be more traditionally trained within particular disciplines and seek more typical academic careers. Our data show that involuntary part-time faculty are more likely than their voluntary part-time counterparts to

52.6 51.2

81.9 83.1

67.8 62.1

88.2

77.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Rarely get hired intofull-time positions

Are primarily responsiblefor introductory classes

Have no guarantee ofemployment security

Are respected by full-time faculty

Voluntary Involuntary

Figure 9. Institutional Perspectives of Part-Time Faculty, by Status (% Agreeing “Strongly” or “Somewhat”)

15

agree with the statement that the criteria for advancement and promotion decisions at their institution were clear. The one-third of tenure-track professors who lack clarity on criteria for promotion should be prime targets for faculty mentoring and development. Although 80.1% of full professors are clear about promotion criteria, only one-third (33.4%) reported they were involved in mentoring new faculty. In fact, on-the-job career mentoring is crucial, as less than half of assistant (48.7%) or associate profes-sors (46.9%) felt that the training they received in graduate school prepared them well for their roles as faculty.

While teaching remains an area of promotion and advancement, where evidence must be presented regarding influence on student learning, it remains an area for continual development. Roughly two-thirds of assistant professors

(66.6%) and 60.7% of associate professors participated in a teaching enhancement workshop, whereas less than half of full professors (46.9%) reported that they did so in the past two years. This may be because they have plans to retire, as 18.2% of full professors plan to retire in the next three years. Even more full professors are thinking about retirement, as 31.0% considered early retirement in the past two years.

More than half (50.8%) of associate professors also considered leaving their institution in the past two years, as did 45.0% of full professors, and 48.6% of assistant professors. In fact, more than one-in-five associate and full professors got a firm job offer, presumably from another insti-tution, in the last two years.4 Sustaining faculty vitality and retention are key as institutions plan over the next several years.4 See p. 39 for tables by rank.

Table 6. Faculty Views and Involvement in Training and Revitalization, by Academic Rank

Full Associate Assistant Professor Professor Professor Lecturer Instructor

Training“To a great extent”:

Feel that the training you received 55.3 46.9 48.7 36.8 40.3 in graduate school prepared you well for your role as a faculty member

Mentor new faculty 33.4 24.4 8.8 8.2 10.1

During the past two years: 46.9 60.7 66.6 65.3 65.6 Participated in a teaching enhancement workshop

RevitalizationAgree “strongly” or “somewhat”: 80.1 67.3 66.9 62.4 65.7 The criteria for advancement and promotion decisions are clear

During the past two years:

Considered leaving this institution 45.0 50.8 48.6 47.1 39.3 for another

Considered early retirement 31.0 22.5 8.1 16.7 10.4

Plan to retire within the next 18.2 8.5 3.1 7.9 5.9 three years

16

References

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeAngelo, L., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., Kelly, K. K., Santos, J. L., & Korn, W. S. (2009). The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 2007–2008 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.

Dey, E. L. (1994). Dimensions of faculty stress: A recent survey. Review of Higher Education, 17(3), 305–322.

Eagan, M. K. & Jaeger, A. J. (2008). Closing the gate: Part-time faculty instruction in gatekeeper courses and first-year persistence. In Braxton, J. M. (Ed.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 39–53.

Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gasiewksi, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introduc-tory STEM courses. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 229–261.

Jaeger, A. J. & Eagan, M. K. (2011). Examining retention and contingent faculty use in a state system of public higher education. Educational Policy, 25(5), 507–537.

Lindholm, J. A., Astin A. W., Sax, L. J., & Korn, W. S. (2002). The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 2001–2002 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.

Maynard, D. C., & Joseph, T. A. (2008). Are all part-time faculty underemployed? The influence of faculty status preference on satisfaction and commitment. Higher Education, 55(2), 139–154.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Presidents’ Advisory Council on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf.

Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Street, S., Maisto, M., Merves, E., & Rhoades, G. (2012). Who is professor “Staff ” and how can this person teach so many classes? Campaign for the Future of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://futureofhighered.org/uploads/ProfStaffFinal.pdf.

Thompson, C. J. & Dey, E. L. (1998). Pushed to the margins: Sources of stress among African American college and university faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 324–345.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf

http://futureofhighered.org/uploads/ProfStaffFinal.pdf

Full-Time Undergraduate Faculty, Type of Institution and Control

Please refer to the HERI website publications section for information on how to obtain the expanded set of tables. http://heri.ucla.edu/facPublications.php

http://heri.ucla.edu/facPublications.php

19

2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey Weighted National Norms—All Respondents

All Bacc Universities 4-year Colleges Institutions Public Private Public All Private Nonsec Catholic Oth Relig

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty—All Respondents 23,824 3,501 3,052 5,487 11,784 4,267 2,090 5,427What is your principal activity in your current position at this institution?

Administration 6.7 8.4 4.7 5.9 5.5 4.7 5.9 6.1Teaching 76.9 70.1 62.2 91.7 91.9 91.8 92.1 91.8Research 15.1 20.1 32.2 1.0 1.3 1.9 1.4 0.6Services to clients and patients 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.8Other 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.2 0.7

Are you considered a full-time employee of your institution for at least nine months of the current academic year?

Yes 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

What is your present academic rank?Professor 32.5 31.9 42.3 27.9 28.8 29.8 25.1 29.6Associate professor 25.4 24.5 22.5 26.6 29.0 28.8 30.5 28.3Assistant professor 26.9 24.9 24.1 29.8 30.9 28.9 34.7 31.1Lecturer 7.8 10.2 7.6 8.1 2.7 4.0 2.3 1.6Instructor 7.3 8.5 3.5 7.4 8.6 8.4 7.4 9.3

What is your tenure status at this institution?Tenured 54.5 56.2 57.6 55.0 47.2 48.9 50.7 43.6On tenure track, but not tenured 22.5 20.6 21.5 26.1 23.8 22.1 23.0 26.0Not on tenure track, but institution has tenure system 20.1 23.0 19.6 18.2 16.6 15.8 17.1 17.3Institution has no tenure system 2.9 0.2 1.4 0.7 12.4 13.2 9.1 13.1

Are you currently serving in an administrative position as:Department chair 9.9 7.5 8.0 10.5 16.7 15.4 16.0 18.4Dean (associate or assistant) 2.0 2.6 1.2 1.5 2.2 1.6 1.8 3.0President 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Vice-president 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3Provost 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2Other 14.9 14.7 16.6 12.9 15.6 14.5 16.6 16.2Not applicable 65.0 67.0 60.7 70.1 59.1 60.6 59.0 57.5

Highest degree earnedBachelor’s (B.A., B.S., etc.) 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.8Master’s (M.A., M.S., M.F.A., M.B.A., etc.) 17.0 16.6 9.7 21.8 20.2 17.6 20.0 23.2LL.B., J.D. 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.9M.D., D.D.S. (or equivalent) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2Other first professional degree beyond B.A. (e.g., D.D., D.V.M.) 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Ed.D. 2.4 1.4 2.3 4.3 3.0 2.2 2.8 4.0Ph.D. 76.3 77.8 84.3 69.2 72.6 76.3 73.6 68.1Other degree 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.2None 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

20



Degree currently working onBachelor’s (B.A., B.S., etc.) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Master’s (M.A., M.S., M.F.A., M.B.A., etc.) 1.1 1.2 0.5 1.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8LL.B., J.D. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0M.D., D.D.S. (or equivalent) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Other first professional degree beyond B.A. (e.g., D.D., D.V.M.) 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1Ed.D. 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.8 1.1Ph.D. 3.7 3.2 1.4 5.1 5.8 5.3 4.4 6.9Other degree 0.9 0.3 1.6 1.0 1.3 0.5 0.7 2.4None 93.4 94.3 95.9 90.8 91.4 93.1 93.4 88.5

Noted as being personally “essential” or “very important”:Research 78.5 82.3 88.6 68.9 69.8 74.4 70.6 64.3Teaching 97.0 96.6 95.0 98.3 98.6 97.7 99.5 99.1Service 62.7 61.3 56.7 65.9 68.6 64.4 71.8 71.6

During the past two years, have you engaged in any of the following activities?

Taught an honors course 21.5 23.0 24.5 16.7 20.1 21.7 19.7 18.6Taught an interdisciplinary course 46.9 45.4 57.4 37.9 49.6 54.0 40.1 49.6Taught an ethnic studies course 11.2 9.8 12.1 11.0 13.7 15.9 11.9 12.2Taught a women’s studies course 7.2 5.8 6.4 7.6 10.6 11.8 10.8 9.3Taught a service learning course 18.0 15.9 15.4 21.9 21.4 19.9 23.4 22.1Taught an exclusively web-based course at this institution 14.0 14.0 6.5 23.6 11.5 8.7 15.9 12.2Participated in a teaching enhancement workshop 58.5 53.4 45.9 69.7 70.8 69.5 72.4 71.5Advised student groups involved in service/volunteer work 43.6 41.0 39.9 48.9 47.9 43.7 47.9 52.5Collaborated with the local community in research/teaching 42.5 41.4 36.8 50.0 42.8 40.6 42.5 45.4Conducted research or writing focused on international/global issues 31.8 32.0 38.3 27.3 29.7 32.8 28.3 27.1Conducted research or writing focused on racial or ethnic minorities 23.1 23.4 27.1 19.1 22.4 25.9 19.8 20.0Conducted research or writing focused on women and gender issues 20.6 20.2 21.8 19.3 21.6 25.3 20.2 18.5Engaged undergraduates on your research project 51.3 52.5 60.1 45.5 46.1 50.5 40.2 44.3Worked with undergraduates on a research project 66.1 64.6 73.0 63.4 65.7 70.4 57.3 65.0Engaged in academic research that spans multiple disciplines 65.5 68.6 75.3 55.5 58.8 63.5 56.1 55.2Taught a seminar for first-year students 26.5 23.8 30.1 21.7 34.1 36.8 28.8 34.1Taught a capstone course 35.8 34.0 31.8 38.9 40.5 41.4 38.0 40.8Taught in a learning community (e.g., FIG, linked courses) 8.2 9.0 4.3 10.4 8.2 8.3 8.0 8.1Supervised an undergraduate thesis 37.6 37.0 44.9 29.1 40.3 48.8 34.1 34.4Published op-ed pieces or editorials 15.2 14.8 17.3 15.8 13.3 12.9 13.3 13.9Received funding for your work from foundations 21.2 20.7 29.6 19.1 16.4 19.0 13.9 15.0Received funding for your work from state or federal government 29.7 37.3 34.3 24.8 12.6 15.9 12.8 9.0Received funding for your work from business or industry 10.8 13.5 12.1 8.7 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.6

How many courses are you teaching this term?Mean 2.5 2.2 2.0 3.2 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.2Median 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Mode 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

Teach at least one course this term at another institution 3.1 2.2 3.3 3.5 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6

21



Type of course taught this term “at this institution”General education course

Teach at least one course 25.5 19.1 17.9 37.7 35.2 33.0 30.1 40.2Mean student enrollment 47.9 64.9 54.8 46.3 24.9 23.9 22.7 26.8Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 24.8 35.1 51.1 11.3 13.8 12.5 6.2 17.8

Course required for an undergraduate majorTeach at least one course 69.8 69.5 52.4 80.7 76.4 71.9 77.2 80.9Mean student enrollment 35.7 45.1 40.0 28.5 20.8 21.0 22.9 19.4Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 24.3 29.1 49.5 10.1 12.8 14.4 10.0 12.6

Other undergraduate courseTeach at least one course 30.8 29.2 36.7 28.2 31.2 36.1 28.6 27.3Mean student enrollment 25.8 32.0 24.3 22.8 16.8 16.7 19.1 15.8Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 17.2 18.6 31.5 6.6 7.5 8.3 6.1 7.2

Developmental/remedial course (not for credit)Teach at least one course 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8Mean student enrollment 28.1 43.3 13.2 29.6 18.1 16.7 22.4 17.7Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 17.8 7.4 32.4 21.6 12.3 18.7 27.1 1.0

Non-credit course (other than above)Teach at least one course 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.3Mean student enrollment 26.5 31.9 18.0 23.4 23.9 15.1 40.1 23.0Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 7.2 5.8 1.6 12.5 12.9 13.0 10.5 14.0

Graduate courseTeach at least one course 22.7 25.7 33.7 17.1 10.6 9.7 17.0 8.3Mean student enrollment 14.2 14.9 12.2 15.3 14.3 14.8 15.1 12.7Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 7.7 7.4 11.1 5.2 2.8 3.4 2.2 2.6

What types of courses do you primarily teach? (based on faculty who indicated they were not teaching this term)

Undergraduate credit courses 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Graduate courses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Non-credit courses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0I do not teach 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Do you teach remedial/developmental skills in any of the following areas?

Reading 6.1 6.3 5.0 6.0 6.7 7.4 7.2 5.6Writing 14.0 14.2 10.9 13.9 16.4 19.4 14.4 14.2Mathematics 5.1 4.9 3.5 7.3 4.9 5.3 4.6 4.7ESL 1.1 1.3 0.5 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.9General academic skills 11.6 12.9 7.7 12.4 11.7 12.3 10.9 11.6Other subject areas 6.7 7.5 4.4 7.4 6.5 7.0 6.4 6.0

22



Have you engaged in any of the following professional development opportunities at your institution?Paid workshops outside the institution focused on teaching

Yes 22.9 19.0 14.3 30.3 32.8 29.6 31.6 36.8No 69.4 72.6 79.5 62.2 59.4 61.9 61.8 55.4Not eligible 1.8 2.3 1.0 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.4Not available 5.9 6.2 5.1 5.7 6.4 6.9 5.3 6.4

Paid sabbatical leaveYes 34.1 31.1 49.2 24.7 36.0 42.7 33.6 30.0No 46.2 48.5 35.0 53.2 44.3 38.4 47.5 49.0Not eligible 16.7 17.3 14.0 18.6 16.1 13.9 17.1 18.1Not available 3.0 3.1 1.7 3.4 3.6 5.0 1.8 2.9

Travel funds paid by the institutionYes 75.7 73.8 71.1 79.0 80.9 81.2 80.9 80.4No 20.1 21.2 24.3 17.2 16.3 15.9 16.1 16.8Not eligible 2.6 3.3 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.3 2.1 1.4Not available 1.7 1.7 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 0.9 1.4

Internal grants for researchYes 48.5 50.2 52.0 45.7 44.1 48.4 43.0 40.1No 46.0 44.3 43.0 49.5 49.2 44.4 51.1 53.3Not eligible 3.7 4.2 3.3 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.8Not available 1.8 1.3 1.7 1.3 3.7 4.2 2.6 3.8

Training for administrative leadershipYes 12.9 12.3 10.8 15.4 13.8 12.7 13.5 15.1No 75.7 77.0 80.4 72.7 71.2 71.4 72.4 70.3Not eligible 5.1 6.3 3.6 4.7 4.4 3.8 4.6 5.0Not available 6.3 4.4 5.2 7.2 10.6 12.1 9.5 9.5

Received incentives to develop new coursesYes 22.4 20.4 19.8 25.2 26.7 30.2 24.3 24.1No 69.2 71.2 74.0 66.5 62.3 58.7 64.9 64.9Not eligible 2.3 2.8 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.0Not available 6.2 5.6 4.8 6.2 8.7 8.7 8.2 9.0

Received incentives to integrate new technology into your classroom

Yes 18.0 16.7 17.2 21.6 18.2 17.7 18.2 18.8No 74.4 76.7 77.5 70.2 70.5 71.1 71.2 69.4Not eligible 1.8 2.1 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.2Not available 5.8 4.4 4.0 6.4 9.9 9.9 8.8 10.6

23



How many of the following have you published?Articles in academic or professional journals

None 18.3 15.9 10.0 22.9 27.4 23.8 26.1 32.01–2 17.8 16.0 11.0 23.0 23.0 21.2 22.1 25.53–4 12.9 10.6 11.8 16.3 15.7 15.8 15.8 15.55–10 17.3 16.5 16.8 19.3 17.7 20.3 18.5 14.511–20 13.3 15.1 15.9 11.0 9.0 10.2 8.8 7.821–50 12.1 15.7 16.3 5.9 5.8 7.2 7.0 3.651+ 8.3 10.1 18.1 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.1

Chapters in edited volumesNone 45.8 41.2 29.9 58.8 58.7 54.6 57.8 63.61–2 24.9 25.1 22.8 26.5 25.0 25.8 26.3 23.53–4 12.4 15.0 13.8 8.2 9.4 11.6 8.3 7.65–10 10.5 11.6 19.7 4.8 5.0 5.8 5.8 3.711–20 4.0 4.7 8.5 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.221–50 1.8 1.9 4.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.351+ 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Books, manuals, or monographsNone 62.2 60.3 49.6 70.8 69.7 67.0 70.3 72.41–2 23.8 24.9 25.8 21.6 21.9 23.9 22.5 19.33–4 7.7 8.7 12.1 4.4 4.7 5.4 3.9 4.55–10 4.8 4.6 9.6 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.111–20 1.2 1.1 2.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.621–50 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.151+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other, such as patents or computer software productsNone 86.8 85.3 81.5 90.8 91.2 91.5 90.8 91.21–2 7.4 8.6 8.7 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.23–4 2.6 2.9 3.8 1.6 1.5 1.1 2.0 1.65–10 1.8 2.0 2.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.011–20 0.8 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.321–50 0.4 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.451+ 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2

How many exhibitions or performances in the fine or applied arts have you presented in the last two years?

None 84.5 85.8 86.6 82.1 81.8 80.1 86.2 81.41–2 5.4 4.9 5.2 5.7 6.4 7.6 5.2 5.83–4 3.2 2.3 2.7 4.5 4.5 5.1 3.7 4.35–10 3.8 3.6 3.9 4.2 3.6 3.4 2.4 4.411–20 1.5 1.4 0.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.921–50 0.9 1.1 0.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.351+ 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.9

24



How many of your professional writings have been published or accepted for publication in the last two years?

None 28.1 23.9 16.9 37.1 39.4 35.0 38.3 44.71–2 30.5 28.1 23.2 36.9 36.6 37.4 36.8 35.73–4 21.9 24.7 26.4 17.7 15.2 17.5 15.5 12.75–10 14.7 17.2 24.5 6.8 7.5 8.9 7.8 5.911–20 3.5 4.8 5.5 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.821–50 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.251+ 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

Do you, “to a great extent”:Feel that the training you received in graduate school prepared you

well for your role as a faculty member 49.0 50.3 52.3 47.0 45.0 43.2 47.1 45.8Achieve a healthy balance between your personal life and your

professional life 32.1 31.3 32.3 33.5 32.2 31.8 34.2 31.7Experience close alignment between your work and your

personal values 62.7 61.5 64.4 61.6 65.1 60.8 67.9 68.3Feel that you have to work harder than your colleagues to be perceived

as a legitimate scholar 28.2 30.3 25.7 28.9 24.8 23.4 25.3 26.0Mentor new faculty 20.7 19.9 21.4 21.9 20.9 21.9 22.7 18.9

In your interactions with undergraduates, how “frequently” do you encourage them to:

Ask questions in class 95.2 94.7 94.6 95.5 96.6 97.3 96.2 96.1Support their opinions with a logical argument 82.4 81.5 81.7 83.7 83.8 85.5 83.2 82.2Seek solutions to problems and explain them to others 71.9 69.8 72.1 74.2 74.2 74.1 75.3 73.6Revise their papers to improve their writing 55.2 52.3 53.4 57.5 61.2 62.2 60.6 60.4Evaluate the quality or reliability of information they receive 68.5 67.3 66.9 71.2 70.2 71.7 71.1 68.2Take risks for potential gains 37.2 35.6 36.0 37.8 41.6 43.7 39.5 40.3Seek alternative solutions to a problem 59.7 57.5 59.2 63.4 61.3 61.8 61.1 60.9Look up scientific research articles and resources 53.8 53.3 58.9 54.7 49.0 50.5 49.3 47.2Explore topics on their own, even though it was not required for a class 52.4 51.5 56.5 53.6 49.2 50.9 49.1 47.6Accept mistakes as part of the learning process 73.9 71.5 72.9 77.2 76.9 76.6 77.2 77.2Seek feedback on their academic work 73.4 71.3 71.8 75.9 77.3 78.1 77.2 76.5Integrate skills and knowledge from different sources and experiences 76.0 75.0 72.9 79.4 77.8 76.5 80.0 78.2

25



Methods you use in “all” or “most” of the courses you teach:Multiple-choice exams 29.3 28.5 20.0 39.6 29.4 21.4 37.1 34.2Essay exams 41.3 40.1 42.1 38.9 45.7 44.1 46.4 47.2Short-answer exams 44.9 44.4 40.6 46.9 48.0 43.6 50.6 51.5Quizzes 38.9 39.6 28.6 45.6 40.2 35.9 41.8 44.1Weekly essay assignments 20.2 18.8 21.6 19.9 22.2 22.5 20.6 22.6Student presentations 43.8 39.3 43.8 45.6 52.1 51.7 51.6 52.8Term/research papers 43.3 39.8 51.1 41.0 46.1 47.9 45.8 44.3Student evaluations of each others’ work 21.0 19.9 15.9 24.6 24.7 25.4 21.7 25.6Grading on a curve 17.3 19.9 21.8 12.9 11.4 11.2 13.2 10.7Competency-based grading 47.6 45.1 47.9 50.8 49.6 51.0 49.9 48.0Class discussions 82.2 80.7 82.5 82.1 85.7 85.1 86.2 86.1Cooperative learning (small groups) 56.7 53.7 50.4 60.8 65.6 65.9 61.7 67.2Experiential learning/Field studies 25.6 23.4 23.1 30.3 28.6 27.2 26.1 31.4Teaching assistants 12.7 14.5 24.2 4.7 5.7 6.4 3.4 6.2Recitals/Demonstrations 19.0 18.2 18.3 20.9 19.6 20.0 17.8 20.2Group projects 32.0 30.4 25.5 36.1 37.6 36.5 37.2 39.0Extensive lecturing 45.0 47.4 46.6 44.0 39.0 37.7 43.6 38.2Multiple drafts of written work 23.9 21.7 22.3 25.7 28.6 31.4 26.7 26.5Student-selected topics for course content 19.8 18.0 20.4 21.3 21.6 22.0 21.3 21.3Reflective writing/journaling 17.6 15.8 13.2 20.6 23.1 21.3 23.2 24.9Community service as part of coursework 5.9 5.3 3.5 7.3 8.1 6.2 9.2 9.6Electronic quizzes with immediate feedback in class 7.4 7.4 5.4 10.3 6.6 4.9 7.2 8.3Using real-life problems 55.4 54.5 46.8 62.9 58.3 55.4 63.5 58.7Using student inquiry to drive learning 45.8 43.7 45.4 48.3 48.7 48.8 51.2 47.2

Personal goals noted as “essential” or “very important”:Becoming an authority in my field 68.8 70.8 79.6 62.3 60.6 60.7 60.8 60.4Influencing the political structure 22.9 22.2 22.8 25.7 21.8 21.4 23.9 21.2Influencing social values 48.5 45.8 45.5 51.0 55.1 50.2 58.2 58.9Raising a family 72.9 71.8 76.4 71.8 73.2 71.0 71.0 76.7Becoming very well off financially 25.6 25.7 27.0 26.7 22.6 23.9 25.5 19.7Helping others who are in difficulty 72.2 70.7 67.9 75.6 76.3 73.7 78.1 78.3Adopting “green” practices to protect the environment 56.6 58.5 48.0 59.9 57.1 58.7 61.6 52.9Developing a meaningful philosophy of life 82.2 81.7 77.1 84.1 86.4 83.7 87.6 88.7Helping to promote racial understanding 72.2 72.4 67.5 72.9 75.4 74.2 76.1 76.2Integrating spirituality into my life 46.4 39.8 42.4 52.9 59.1 46.2 63.1 70.8Making a theoretical contribution to science 38.0 41.4 49.4 31.5 26.0 26.5 30.9 22.9Participating in a community action program 28.0 25.7 24.1 33.7 31.4 28.6 34.0 33.1Keeping up to date with political affairs 59.8 59.1 61.0 60.3 59.6 60.5 62.5 57.2Becoming a community leader 18.8 17.2 13.4 23.9 22.7 20.0 24.7 24.7Mentoring the next generation of scholars 77.7 77.5 85.0 74.2 74.9 73.8 75.5 75.8

26



Goals for undergraduates noted as “essential” or “very important”Develop ability to think critically 99.5 99.5 99.6 99.4 99.3 98.8 99.8 99.5Prepare students for employment after college 78.3 76.4 71.7 86.3 81.0 77.3 83.1 83.9Prepare students for graduate or advanced education 75.2 72.2 77.2 76.8 78.4 77.3 77.9 79.9Develop moral character 68.8 64.8 64.2 71.9 79.1 72.5 84.4 83.5Provide for students’ emotional development 50.4 46.6 45.6 53.2 61.2 54.8 67.1 65.0Teach students the classic works of Western civilization 27.9 24.8 29.9 27.6 33.5 30.4 35.3 36.0Help students develop personal values 64.1 57.9 62.4 68.0 76.2 69.5 80.8 81.2Enhance students’ self-understanding 71.0 67.4 66.1 74.6 80.2 77.2 83.7 81.7Instill in students a commitment to community service 44.5 39.4 37.8 52.0 55.1 46.8 61.1 61.0Enhance students’ knowledge of and appreciation for other

racial/ethnic groups 70.1 67.7 64.8 73.8 76.9 75.4 77.3 78.3Help master knowledge in a discipline 94.1 94.0 94.2 94.2 93.9 92.2 95.2 94.9Develop creative capacities 79.4 78.2 82.3 78.8 79.7 79.5 80.5 79.5Instill a basic appreciation of the liberal arts 66.7 61.6 64.5 68.2 78.9 78.5 78.3 79.7Promote ability to write effectively 91.3 89.6 90.3 92.6 94.6 94.7 93.9 94.7Help students evaluate the quality and reliability of information 95.7 95.6 95.8 95.8 95.7 95.5 95.2 96.0Engage students in civil discourse around controversial issues 66.7 64.2 64.7 67.3 73.5 73.2 72.4 74.4Teach students tolerance and respect for different beliefs 78.9 77.0 72.8 82.3 85.7 84.6 86.5 86.4Encourage students to become agents of social change 52.1 48.4 47.2 56.0 61.3 57.8 65.0 63.0

During the present term, how many hours per week on average do you actually spend on:Scheduled teaching (give actual, not credit hours)

None 5.8 6.7 8.4 2.7 4.3 5.8 3.4 3.21–4 15.8 19.6 23.5 7.0 8.5 9.9 8.0 7.35–8 34.6 40.6 44.0 20.4 26.2 30.2 27.1 21.49–12 28.6 22.1 16.5 44.8 39.0 36.2 41.0 41.113–16 9.2 5.7 4.6 16.2 14.8 12.1 13.8 18.217–20 3.7 3.4 2.0 5.1 4.8 3.4 4.7 6.321–34 1.7 1.5 0.9 2.8 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.035–44 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.245+ 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3

Preparing for teaching (including reading student papers and grading)

None 4.9 5.6 7.2 2.3 3.8 5.2 2.9 2.91–4 11.5 13.9 13.5 7.6 8.1 8.2 7.8 8.25–8 24.4 25.1 30.5 20.8 20.9 20.3 23.6 20.29–12 22.4 22.6 20.4 24.4 21.5 19.7 24.6 21.913–16 13.9 12.2 12.8 15.9 16.5 16.1 16.4 17.017–20 12.1 11.5 8.3 14.6 14.8 15.5 14.2 14.421–34 8.0 6.9 5.5 11.0 10.1 10.8 7.1 10.935–44 1.8 1.2 1.7 2.2 3.2 3.1 2.2 3.945+ 0.9 0.9 0.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.7

27



During the present term, how many hours per week on average do you actually spend on:Advising and counseling of students

None 4.4 5.1 2.8 4.0 4.4 5.0 4.7 3.51–4 56.7 59.0 58.2 52.6 54.4 54.4 53.8 54.85–8 27.1 25.3 26.0 29.6 29.8 30.6 29.2 29.29–12 7.8 6.9 8.8 9.1 7.5 6.6 8.2 8.213–16 2.2 1.8 3.2 2.6 2.1 1.6 2.5 2.517–20 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.4 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.921–34 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.735–44 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.145+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Committee work and meetingsNone 7.6 8.7 7.9 5.2 7.0 8.1 5.6 6.51–4 58.0 56.1 60.6 56.6 61.3 59.9 58.5 64.35–8 23.7 23.7 23.1 26.0 22.3 22.1 25.2 21.09–12 6.8 7.2 5.7 7.8 5.8 6.3 6.8 4.813–16 2.2 2.4 1.5 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.4 1.617–20 1.3 1.5 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.1 0.7 1.221–34 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.335–44 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.245+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other administrationNone 30.6 32.5 28.4 31.2 27.4 29.3 26.9 25.71–4 39.7 36.4 43.0 41.4 42.0 43.0 39.8 42.25–8 13.8 14.0 14.2 12.1 14.9 13.9 15.5 15.79–12 6.6 6.9 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.4 7.2 6.513–16 3.4 3.4 3.7 2.9 3.4 3.2 4.4 3.317–20 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.9 2.8 2.3 3.2 3.121–34 2.3 3.0 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.0 2.335–44 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.045+ 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3

Research and scholarly writingNone 13.1 12.2 7.3 15.3 18.4 16.0 18.0 21.31–4 30.3 25.4 16.3 42.3 42.9 40.6 41.3 46.35–8 19.2 19.7 16.2 20.6 19.5 21.2 20.3 17.19–12 12.9 13.6 17.3 11.1 8.7 9.3 9.5 7.813–16 6.9 7.9 10.3 4.7 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.017–20 6.0 7.2 9.8 2.7 2.9 3.7 3.0 2.021–34 6.3 7.5 12.5 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.3 1.535–44 3.4 4.1 6.5 0.8 1.1 1.9 1.1 0.445+ 2.0 2.3 3.9 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.6

28



During the present term, how many hours per week on average do you actually spend on:Other creative products/performances

None 59.0 59.8 62.9 54.8 57.5 58.6 56.5 56.81–4 25.2 23.3 22.9 28.6 28.1 27.1 29.2 28.65–8 8.5 9.2 7.5 9.0 7.5 7.3 7.2 8.09–12 3.8 4.1 3.6 3.9 3.2 2.7 3.9 3.413–16 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.217–20 1.2 1.2 0.6 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.2 0.921–34 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.535–44 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.245+ 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4

Consultation with clients/patientsNone 84.1 84.7 86.4 81.1 83.5 85.4 82.3 81.91–4 10.7 10.1 9.5 12.9 11.0 9.5 11.3 12.55–8 2.9 2.8 1.9 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.19–12 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.413–16 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.517–20 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.421–34 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.235–44 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.045+ 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Community or public serviceNone 46.6 49.9 55.1 36.2 41.5 47.9 38.6 36.01–4 43.7 41.0 37.8 51.3 47.7 43.2 49.8 51.45–8 7.1 6.7 4.7 9.2 8.3 6.8 8.6 9.79–12 1.7 1.5 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.3 2.0 2.113–16 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.417–20 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.321–34 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.135–44 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.045+ 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

Outside consulting/freelance workNone 72.5 73.3 69.2 71.0 75.3 76.5 77.7 72.81–4 21.2 21.1 22.7 21.9 19.1 18.1 17.2 21.15–8 4.4 4.1 5.4 5.0 3.7 3.4 3.2 4.39–12 1.1 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.213–16 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.117–20 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.321–34 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.235–44 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.045+ 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

29



During the present term, how many hours per week on average do you actually spend on:Household/childcare duties

None 9.2 9.3 10.6 8.7 8.1 7.3 8.7 8.71–4 17.9 18.0 16.5 18.8 18.2 18.2 17.5 18.65–8 25.2 25.6 23.2 26.2 25.3 25.1 25.2 25.59–12 16.1 16.5 15.3 16.1 16.1 16.3 16.0 16.013–16 8.7 8.5 10.0 7.8 9.1 8.7 10.1 8.917–20 8.6 8.6 9.0 8.7 8.2 8.8 7.0 8.221–34 5.9 5.5 6.3 6.0 6.5 6.9 6.2 6.235–44 4.1 4.0 5.2 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.645+ 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.8 5.0 5.3 5.7 4.4

Commuting to campusNone 7.5 7.4 5.4 6.0 11.5 14.1 6.3 11.31–4 58.6 62.7 51.5 60.3 54.4 51.1 53.7 58.35–8 24.2 22.3 29.4 23.2 24.5 25.5 28.9 21.19–12 7.7 6.0 11.4 8.3 7.5 7.2 9.6 6.913–16 1.5 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.917–20 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.321–34 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.135–44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.045+ 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other employment, outside of academiaNone 89.5 90.7 91.7 86.8 87.1 89.1 88.6 84.21–4 5.7 5.3 3.9 7.0 6.9 6.0 5.5 8.65–8 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.7 1.7 2.7 3.69–12 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.7 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.513–16 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.3 0.617–20 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.1 0.721–34 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.535–44 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.345+ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

General activitiesAre you a member of a faculty union? 26.3 36.2 3.8 42.1 8.9 12.4 9.8 4.6Are you a U.S. citizen? 92.0 91.2 91.1 93.4 93.5 92.5 94.0 94.3Do you plan to retire within the next three years? 9.8 9.8 7.9 12.4 8.9 8.9 9.6 8.6Do you use your scholarship to address local community needs? 37.4 37.2 29.0 46.0 36.8 32.4 37.1 41.5Have you been sexually harassed at this institution? 4.7 4.7 4.1 5.3 4.8 5.3 4.7 4.2Have you ever interrupted your professional career for more than

one year for family reasons? 10.9 10.8 8.1 12.8 11.7 11.4 12.2 11.9Have you ever received an award for outstanding teaching? 42.6 44.8 40.1 43.9 38.6 38.2 37.4 39.5Is (or was) your spouse/partner an academic? 33.5 35.1 33.8 31.3 32.0 34.1 28.0 31.9

During the past two years, have you:Considered early retirement? 19.8 20.6 17.1 22.4 17.7 19.0 16.9 16.7Considered leaving academe for another job? 31.5 31.7 27.3 34.5 31.9 33.4 28.5 32.1Considered leaving this institution for another? 47.3 49.5 47.4 46.6 43.0 45.0 39.9 42.3Changed academic institutions? 16.7 16.9 16.4 16.7 16.5 15.8 15.5 17.7Engaged in paid consulting outside of your institution? 36.4 37.4 43.1 34.8 29.2 29.5 27.7 29.8Engaged in public service/professional consulting without pay? 57.1 57.7 55.4 61.3 52.8 50.9 52.6 54.9Received at least one firm job offer? 25.3 24.7 26.1 26.7 24.8 23.5 23.3 26.9Requested/sought an early promotion? 7.9 8.2 8.0 8.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.5

30



If you were to begin your career again, would you:Still want to come to this institution?

Definitely yes 36.3 31.5 46.5 34.4 39.7 38.6 39.8 40.8Probably yes 33.8 35.9 30.6 32.1 33.5 32.3 34.8 34.1Not sure 16.8 18.5 12.3 18.2 15.6 16.6 15.1 14.8Probably no 8.0 8.2 6.4 10.0 7.0 6.9 6.2 7.6Definitely no 5.2 5.9 4.1 5.4 4.2 5.6 4.1 2.8

Still want to be a college professor? Definitely yes 61.6 59.6 61.8 63.8 63.6 61.7 67.0 64.0Probably yes 26.3 27.2 26.4 24.5 25.9 26.9 23.2 26.2Not sure 8.9 10.0 8.7 8.2 7.3 7.7 7.5 6.9Probably no 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.6 3.3 1.7 2.4Definitely no 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5

Attributes noted as being “very descriptive” of your institutionIt is easy for students to see faculty outside of regular office hours 53.5 43.5 48.5 59.8 75.1 74.0 74.2 76.8The faculty are typically at odds with campus administration 19.5 21.4 15.3 21.4 17.1 20.2 14.3 15.3Faculty here respect each other 48.2 44.9 54.1 44.8 53.8 50.7 54.5 56.8Most students are treated like “numbers in a book” 4.9 6.6 4.0 4.2 2.3 3.4 1.4 1.7Faculty are rewarded for being good teachers 16.5 13.8 13.8 18.2 23.7 25.7 23.4 21.6There is respect for the expression of diverse values and beliefs 35.7 33.8 43.1 31.9 37.0 41.3 37.7 32.0Faculty are rewarded for their efforts to use instructional technology 14.7 13.2 14.3 19.3 13.6 13.8 13.3 13.5Administrators consider faculty concerns when making policy 14.6 11.5 15.6 15.7 19.6 20.1 17.3 20.4The administration is open about its policies 16.7 14.4 13.7 20.6 20.8 18.3 20.0 23.8

Factors noted as a source of stress for you during the last two years

Managing household responsibilities 74.7 74.4 72.7 75.1 77.3 78.4 76.5 76.5Child care 55.7 55.0 58.7 51.7 58.3 62.6 57.0 54.8Care of elderly parent 49.9 49.6 52.8 48.8 48.7 47.7 52.0 48.1My physical health 54.0 54.0 54.5 54.0 53.7 55.1 53.1 52.5Health of spouse/partner 44.3 46.2 40.9 45.3 42.0 41.0 43.7 42.2Review/promotion process 57.8 59.8 54.3 59.0 55.3 56.3 54.1 54.9Subtle discrimination (e.g., prejudice, racism, sexism) 28.3 28.8 27.3 29.1 27.1 29.3 24.5 26.1Personal finances 65.7 65.5 58.5 70.1 68.7 68.4 66.8 69.9Committee work 62.0 60.9 56.0 67.4 64.6 65.6 67.3 62.2Faculty meetings 53.9 53.3 50.8 57.3 54.8 54.1 57.7 54.0Colleagues 61.7 62.2 58.1 63.2 62.3 64.1 61.2 60.8Students 60.6 60.3 53.1 64.5 64.8 66.0 61.6 65.2Research or publishing demands 70.7 74.5 77.7 64.1 61.8 66.3 63.8 55.8Institutional procedures and “red tape” 71.3 75.5 66.8 73.6 63.5 62.1 66.1 63.7Teaching load 62.6 61.9 50.5 71.2 67.4 64.8 68.7 69.5Children’s problems 48.0 49.1 48.8 44.7 48.1 49.8 47.9 46.5Friction with spouse/partner 33.2 32.8 33.0 34.5 33.1 34.5 33.9 31.4Lack of personal time 82.2 81.5 83.1 82.4 82.8 83.5 81.9 82.4Keeping up with information technology 52.1 51.1 47.6 57.5 53.0 50.3 56.1 54.3Job security 39.2 41.1 30.0 43.6 39.4 41.6 35.0 39.3Being part of a dual career couple 49.8 50.5 49.8 46.8 51.1 51.4 51.0 50.8Working with underprepared students 75.3 78.1 58.1 83.5 77.1 74.1 79.3 79.3Self-imposed high expectations 84.8 85.1 86.1 83.5 84.2 84.4 83.7 84.3Change in work responsibilities 49.7 50.8 43.6 51.3 51.3 50.9 51.7 51.6Institutional budget cuts 74.2 86.1 47.2 83.4 62.5 67.5 56.7 60.2

31



Aspects of your job with which you are “very satisfied” or “satisfied”:

Salary 48.6 47.0 58.4 44.0 47.6 49.9 52.8 42.4Health benefits 71.4 72.3 75.7 73.3 62.7 62.4 69.5 59.6Retirement benefits 68.5 67.1 76.2 69.9 62.7 61.8 65.2 62.4Opportunity for scholarly pursuits 58.8 60.1 75.7 48.1 50.3 52.2 48.3 49.2Teaching load 58.7 59.1 73.2 46.8 55.8 58.3 55.3 53.2Quality of students 53.8 48.6 73.8 42.9 57.4 60.4 55.3 55.3Office/lab space 70.3 69.8 72.2 68.8 71.0 70.5 74.4 70.0Autonomy and independence 85.6 86.0 87.7 82.8 85.6 85.8 86.1 85.2Professional relationships with other faculty 76.7 76.0 75.3 75.6 80.8 79.6 82.3 81.3Social relationships with other faculty 65.6 63.8 60.4 68.2 71.9 71.0 74.7 71.5Competency of colleagues 78.7 77.0 83.6 75.8 81.2 80.4 80.8 82.2Job security 73.4 71.2 79.7 70.4 75.5 75.1 78.6 74.3Departmental leadership 68.5 66.6 68.1 69.5 72.3 71.0 72.0 73.9Course assignments 82.6 81.2 84.9 81.1 85.0 84.2 87.2 84.8Freedom to determine course content 91.8 92.0 92.4 90.7 92.0 91.2 92.1 92.8Availability of child care at this institution 26.5 25.1 26.8 34.9 21.7 22.9 23.0 19.5Prospects for career advancement 54.2 52.2 61.6 50.2 56.1 55.3 59.6 55.3Clerical/administrative support 57.8 55.2 56.2 62.6 60.5 59.1 64.9 59.7Overall job satisfaction 74.7 73.2 77.2 73.4 77.1 75.9 80.7 76.6Tuition remission for your children/dependents 66.2 56.1 80.8 55.6 79.6 76.0 83.4 81.4

Do you agree “strongly” or “somewhat”?Faculty are interested in students’ personal problems 81.3 76.6 73.7 86.9 93.7 90.5 95.8 96.2Racial and ethnic diversity should be more strongly reflected in

the curriculum 53.3 49.4 50.2 56.1 62.4 60.3 63.7 64.0Faculty feel that most students are well-prepared academically 39.7 31.4 66.7 28.3 44.7 46.0 45.6 42.8This institution should hire more faculty of color 71.9 72.1 74.5 65.8 75.4 74.5 76.6 75.7This institution should hire more women faculty 60.5 63.2 69.9 53.1 53.1 53.3 49.8 54.6Student Affairs staff have the support and respect of faculty 76.2 74.2 81.0 76.4 76.3 73.3 78.0 78.5Faculty are committed to the welfare of this institution 90.2 88.0 92.8 89.1 94.1 92.6 94.9 95.2Faculty here are strongly interested in the academic problems

of undergraduates 86.0 81.7 81.8 90.9 94.8 93.7 94.7 96.0There is a lot of campus racial conflict here 9.3 10.0 6.2 8.5 11.4 11.0 11.0 12.0My research is valued by faculty in my department 75.0 73.9 79.0 71.6 77.2 78.2 76.9 76.3My teaching is valued by faculty in my department 88.2 86.5 86.3 89.6 92.4 92.1 93.3 92.3Faculty of color are treated fairly here 90.2 89.2 91.5 91.1 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6Women faculty are treated fairly here 88.1 87.9 87.0 88.2 89.5 90.2 89.1 88.9Gay and lesbian faculty are treated fairly here 86.5 88.1 86.7 89.2 79.7 89.8 76.5 70.0Faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision making 56.1 53.3 52.5 60.1 62.1 61.4 60.0 63.9My values are congruent with the dominant institutional values 72.1 66.0 76.1 73.9 80.7 76.0 83.8 84.1This institution takes responsibility for educating

underprepared students 64.3 61.1 57.5 70.9 71.7 66.9 75.5 74.8The criteria for advancement and promotion decisions are clear 71.0 71.1 68.0 72.8 72.0 70.9 75.5 71.4Most of the students I teach lack the basic skills for college level work 36.7 38.5 17.3 52.1 35.7 34.6 37.2 36.0There is adequate support for faculty development 63.5 60.4 68.5 62.6 66.6 64.1 69.1 68.0

32



Issues you believe to be of “highest” or “high” priority at your institution:

To promote the intellectual development of students 79.6 75.4 85.4 77.8 85.4 84.8 86.4 85.5To develop a sense of community among students and faculty 53.3 46.4 47.9 54.9 72.6 66.6 76.6 76.9To facilitate student involvement in community service 42.9 33.3 44.1 45.8 60.9 46.9 77.4 67.5To help students learn how to bring about change in society 34.5 26.7 38.4 32.3 51.0 42.7 61.6 54.4To increase or maintain institutional prestige 71.3 74.8 86.5 56.9 63.5 65.5 67.2 59.5To hire faculty “stars” 37.2 43.4 65.7 16.0 17.1 15.8 17.3 18.5To recruit more minority students 46.1 45.1 46.6 46.5 47.2 48.8 46.9 45.8To enhance the institution’s national image 74.6 82.1 89.6 55.1 62.7 68.2 62.3 57.1To create a diverse multi-cultural campus environment 49.7 48.4 48.4 49.7 53.7 57.3 51.3 51.0To promote gender equity among faculty 46.5 45.9 47.9 45.5 47.8 49.2 46.1 47.2To provide resources for faculty to engage in community-based

teaching or research 29.2 26.9 25.2 35.1 32.4 29.2 41.1 31.3To create and sustain partnerships with surrounding communities 41.9 37.6 43.5 50.7 41.5 35.5 50.6 43.3To pursue extramural funding 65.9 80.3 76.3 47.3 42.0 43.3 44.7 39.2To increase the representation of minorities in the faculty

and administration 39.0 39.3 41.3 37.3 37.9 40.9 36.0 35.7To strengthen links with the for-profit, corporate sector 48.7 57.6 51.3 44.1 30.3 29.5 35.4 28.7To develop leadership ability among students 51.4 43.7 58.1 49.3 64.4 59.1 69.5 67.5To increase the representation of women in the faculty

and administration 34.8 35.8 40.4 31.1 30.9 33.1 31.6 28.3To develop an appreciation for multiculturalism 49.9 49.0 43.4 50.5 57.6 59.6 56.3 56.0

Do you agree “strongly” or “somewhat”?The chief benefit of a college education is that it increases one’s

earning power 55.2 56.6 48.2 61.5 52.0 51.2 57.4 50.2Promoting diversity leads to the admission of too many

underprepared students 24.4 24.3 22.5 27.6 23.0 21.0 25.4 24.0Colleges should be actively involved in solving social problems 74.7 74.4 75.4 74.0 75.3 74.3 79.4 74.2Colleges should encourage students to be involved in community

service activities 87.0 84.3 86.3 89.8 91.2 88.3 93.6 93.0A racially/ethnically diverse student body enhances the educational

experience of all students 94.9 94.8 95.5 94.0 95.4 95.4 95.7 95.3Realistically, an individual can do little to bring about changes in society 19.3 21.0 21.1 17.2 16.0 17.2 15.4 15.0Colleges should be concerned with facilitating undergraduate students’

spiritual development 31.9 21.3 34.7 28.7 57.2 37.5 72.7 70.5Colleges have a responsibility to work with their surrounding

communities to address local issues 87.7 86.3 88.1 89.0 89.3 86.7 91.6 90.9Private funding sources often prevent researchers from being

completely objective in the conduct of their work 57.6 60.5 53.9 59.3 52.8 54.4 53.6 50.7Colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus 63.1 61.0 64.7 62.0 67.9 62.7 70.8 72.0This institution should not offer remedial/developmental education 21.8 19.8 27.7 22.8 19.7 20.9 15.6 20.5

33



Your base institutional salary9/10 month contract

Less than $20,000 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1$20,000–$29,999 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2$30,000–$39,999 3.3 4.3 0.1 5.0 1.4 1.1 0.8 2.2$40,000–$49,999 10.7 9.9 4.5 14.0 15.0 12.7 12.7 18.6$50,000–$59,999 18.9 18.6 6.2 23.6 25.6 18.3 22.3 35.2$60,000–$69,999 17.4 15.7 11.9 21.1 22.8 24.8 23.7 20.1$70,000–$79,999 13.9 14.7 11.4 15.0 12.8 14.2 14.1 10.5$80,000–$89,999 10.0 10.1 12.5 9.0 8.9 10.8 9.7 6.6$90,000–$99,999 7.4 7.7 11.4 5.9 4.9 5.8 6.4 3.2$100,000–$124,999 10.0 10.9 16.7 5.9 6.3 9.2 7.9 2.4$125,000–$149,999 3.7 4.2 9.3 0.3 1.4 2.0 1.9 0.4$150,000 or more 3.9 2.9 15.4 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.5

11/12 month contractLess than $20,000 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1$20,000–$29,999 0.7 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.5$30,000–$39,999 2.5 3.9 0.2 4.7 1.5 1.0 0.6 2.6$40,000–$49,999 10.3 10.2 3.6 13.4 15.2 13.0 15.7 17.7$50,000–$59,999 16.7 17.7 7.6 17.0 24.1 20.4 20.2 30.5$60,000–$69,999 18.0 14.5 18.1 22.0 20.7 21.4 24.4 18.3$70,000–$79,999 10.9 8.7 10.5 14.3 12.4 13.0 11.5 12.1$80,000–$89,999 9.0 8.1 10.8 7.1 9.6 10.4 8.8 8.9$90,000–$99,999 8.2 8.8 10.5 8.4 4.9 4.9 6.5 4.3$100,000–$124,999 11.9 12.0 17.3 8.7 8.3 11.5 9.3 3.9$125,000–$149,999 6.0 7.3 10.4 2.7 1.7 2.5 1.5 0.7$150,000 or more 5.3 6.9 9.9 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.5 0.4

Your base institutional salary reported above is based on:Less than 9 months 4.4 2.9 5.5 6.0 5.2 4.4 4.8 6.49/10 months 71.1 76.8 61.0 75.0 63.2 60.5 69.2 63.011/12 months 24.5 20.3 33.5 19.0 31.6 35.1 25.9 30.6

What percentage of your current year’s income comes from:Base salary from this institution

100% 45.2 48.8 39.3 43.4 44.3 45.8 44.7 42.575% to 99% 44.4 41.8 45.6 47.0 46.5 45.7 44.2 48.574% to 50% 8.2 7.2 12.6 7.7 7.0 6.5 7.2 7.425% to 49% 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 2.8 1.21% to 24% 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.20% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2

Other income from this institution100% 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.075% to 99% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.074% to 50% 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.225% to 49% 4.2 5.4 4.9 2.9 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.01% to 24% 29.6 26.3 29.0 34.9 32.6 30.6 33.7 34.20% 65.8 67.8 65.7 61.9 65.2 67.3 63.6 63.6

34



What percentage of your current year’s income comes from:Income from another academic institution

100% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.075% to 99% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.074% to 50% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.325% to 49% 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.61% to 24% 5.5 4.7 6.5 5.3 6.4 5.9 5.3 7.60% 93.5 94.3 92.4 93.6 92.6 93.1 93.9 91.5

Non-academic income100% 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.075% to 99% 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.274% to 50% 1.9 1.4 3.3 1.5 2.2 2.4 3.1 1.425% to 49% 4.8 4.1 6.3 5.3 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.91% to 24% 25.7 23.9 31.3 24.9 25.8 25.7 23.0 27.20% 67.0 70.2 58.2 67.9 67.0 67.1 68.4 66.2

Please enter the four-digit year that each of the following occurred.Year of birth

1981 or later 2.5 2.6 1.8 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.61976–1980 9.7 10.2 8.5 9.5 9.9 9.9 9.4 10.31971–1975 10.9 10.7 11.3 9.9 11.9 13.1 11.1 11.01966–1970 14.0 14.7 13.7 11.7 14.9 16.3 12.6 14.51961–1965 12.5 11.9 12.4 13.0 13.4 12.6 12.7 14.71956–1960 14.0 13.7 12.6 15.8 14.1 13.8 13.1 15.11951–1955 16.1 16.3 16.8 16.6 14.8 14.4 15.4 14.81946–1950 12.8 13.1 11.7 14.0 11.8 10.9 14.1 11.41941–1945 5.5 5.4 7.0 4.8 5.0 5.1 6.4 4.11940 or earlier 2.1 1.5 4.2 1.9 1.8 1.6 2.9 1.5

Year of highest degree now held 1973 or earlier 4.8 4.8 7.8 3.0 3.5 3.6 4.1 3.01974–1978 7.1 7.8 9.3 5.3 4.9 5.3 4.7 4.51979–1983 9.7 10.4 11.2 8.7 7.8 7.1 9.0 7.91984–1988 10.8 10.6 11.8 11.0 10.2 11.2 10.8 8.71989–1993 12.6 12.6 13.1 12.6 12.2 11.8 13.0 12.21994–1998 14.0 13.3 11.9 15.6 16.1 16.1 14.8 16.81999–2003 15.0 15.2 12.7 15.2 16.7 17.4 15.2 16.62004–2008 17.4 16.9 15.8 18.6 18.8 18.4 17.7 19.92009 or later 8.6 8.4 6.2 10.0 9.9 9.1 10.7 10.3

Year of appointment at present institution 1973 or earlier 1.7 1.6 2.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.3 1.21974–1978 2.6 2.5 4.0 1.7 2.5 2.5 3.1 2.31979–1983 5.9 5.9 7.6 5.4 4.9 5.0 5.2 4.61984–1988 8.9 9.0 10.4 8.9 7.4 7.7 7.4 7.11989–1993 10.4 10.3 11.7 10.5 9.2 9.3 9.5 8.81994–1998 11.6 11.4 12.2 11.0 11.9 11.9 12.5 11.61999–2003 14.3 14.3 12.9 14.4 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.82004–2008 22.9 23.1 20.9 23.2 23.9 24.0 22.2 24.82009 or later 21.6 21.9 17.8 23.5 22.6 22.1 21.4 23.8

35



Please enter the four-digit year that each of the following occurred.If tenured, year tenure was awarded

1973 or earlier 1.4 1.0 3.6 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.5 0.71974–1978 2.4 2.2 4.7 1.1 1.8 1.6 2.3 1.71979–1983 5.1 5.4 7.6 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.1 3.41984–1988 9.7 10.6 11.0 7.6 8.0 8.1 8.6 7.31989–1993 13.9 15.2 13.5 13.4 11.3 12.0 11.6 10.31994–1998 18.0 17.0 22.4 18.1 15.8 16.6 15.4 15.11999–2003 16.2 16.7 14.1 16.2 17.4 17.5 16.9 17.52004–2008 20.3 20.4 13.8 23.2 24.3 23.4 24.5 25.12009 or later 12.9 11.4 9.4 16.3 17.0 16.0 15.9 18.9

Aggregated MajorAgriculture or Forestry (General Area 1) 1.8 3.3 0.3 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4Biological Sciences (General Area 5) 6.9 7.4 6.2 6.5 6.9 5.9 6.9 8.0Business (General Area 6) 4.6 3.8 3.5 6.6 5.6 3.8 8.8 6.0Education (General Area 10 and Specific Discipline 2102) 7.5 6.1 3.7 12.0 9.6 7.4 9.0 12.4Engineering (General Area 11) 4.8 6.0 8.0 2.4 1.3 1.8 1.6 0.7English (General Area 12) 6.8 6.1 6.3 7.6 8.2 9.7 6.7 7.4Health-related (General Area 15) 4.6 4.1 3.9 5.5 5.3 4.6 8.6 4.4History or Political Science (Specific Discipline 3007, 3009) 7.5 7.1 11.8 4.6 7.1 8.9 5.4 5.9Humanities (General Area 14, 24) 10.0 10.8 11.3 4.9 12.3 11.5 13.5 12.6Fine Arts (General Area 2, 4, 22) 7.5 7.6 6.5 7.3 8.2 9.0 4.8 9.2Mathematics or Statistics (General Area 18) 4.7 4.8 4.4 5.0 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.5Physical Sciences (General Area 25) 7.2 6.9 8.5 7.5 6.1 7.0 5.7 5.3Social Sciences (General Area 3, 26, 27 and Specific Discipline 3001,

3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3008, 3010, 3011, 3012) 14.7 15.0 15.6 14.6 13.4 15.0 13.4 11.7Other Technical (General Area 8, 19, 28) 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.8 1.9Other Non-technical (General Area 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 29, 31, 32

and Specific Discipline 2101, 2103) 8.9 8.5 7.1 11.6 8.8 8.2 8.2 9.6Aggregated Department

Agriculture or Forestry (General Area 1) 1.7 3.4 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2Biological Sciences (General Area 5) 6.4 6.5 6.0 6.2 6.7 5.6 7.0 7.8Business (General Area 6) 5.6 4.2 4.3 8.1 7.4 5.0 10.6 8.4Education (General Area 10 and Specific Discipline 2102) 4.9 4.4 2.2 7.4 5.9 3.9 6.3 7.9Engineering (General Area 11) 5.2 6.6 8.7 2.3 1.4 2.1 1.5 0.5English (General Area 12) 7.0 6.1 6.5 8.3 8.6 9.6 6.8 8.5Health-related (General Area 15) 5.3 4.3 5.1 7.3 5.9 5.2 9.6 4.7History or Political Science (Specific Discipline 3007, 3009) 7.3 7.2 10.5 4.4 7.2 9.2 4.8 6.3Humanities (General Area 14, 24) 9.9 10.5 12.0 4.3 12.0 11.5 12.7 12.3Fine Arts (General Area 2, 4, 22) 7.7 7.9 7.0 7.5 8.2 8.9 4.5 9.5Mathematics or Statistics (General Area 18) 4.7 4.4 4.0 5.6 4.9 5.2 4.4 4.7Physical Sciences (General Area 25) 6.6 5.9 7.4 7.5 6.4 7.7 5.7 5.4Social Sciences (General Area 3, 26, 27 and Specific Discipline 3001,

3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3008, 3010, 3011, 3012) 13.3 14.0 13.4 12.6 12.4 14.8 12.3 9.9Other Technical (General Area 8, 19, 28) 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.4 2.3 2.1 3.0 2.1Other Non-technical (General Area 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 29, 31, 32

and Specific Discipline 2101, 2103) 11.6 11.9 9.7 13.9 10.4 8.8 10.7 11.9

36



How many children do you have in the following age ranges?Under 18 years old

0 61.8 62.5 58.8 63.6 61.2 62.5 63.2 58.71 18.2 18.9 20.2 17.0 15.9 17.0 14.3 15.52 15.2 14.5 15.8 14.0 17.3 16.4 16.3 18.73 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.9 4.2 3.6 4.1 4.84+ 1.4 1.1 2.1 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.2 2.2

18 years or older 0 60.9 62.3 58.5 58.2 62.8 67.8 61.9 57.81 12.2 11.7 13.9 12.6 11.3 11.2 10.2 12.02 16.5 16.8 15.4 17.6 15.7 13.7 16.1 17.83 6.6 6.3 6.3 7.0 6.9 5.0 7.9 8.54+ 3.8 2.8 5.9 4.6 3.2 2.3 3.8 3.9

How would you characterize your political views?Far left 12.4 13.3 16.2 8.8 10.2 14.0 7.8 7.4Liberal 50.3 52.4 51.5 47.1 47.6 54.6 48.0 40.0Middle of the road 25.4 24.7 22.3 28.7 26.7 22.6 30.7 29.1Conservative 11.5 9.2 9.8 14.7 15.1 8.6 13.3 23.0Far right 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6

Are you currently: (Mark one)Single 11.4 10.4 11.2 12.1 13.3 13.6 16.2 11.4Married 75.6 76.7 76.8 73.4 74.1 70.5 71.4 79.3Unmarried, living with partner 5.8 5.9 6.5 5.0 5.5 8.2 4.4 3.2Divorced 5.1 5.3 3.5 6.4 5.1 5.4 4.9 4.8Widowed 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.6 1.1 1.1 2.0 0.6Separated 1.0 0.6 1.2 1.6 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.6

Is English your native language?Yes 87.2 85.5 85.7 89.9 90.0 88.7 89.2 91.9No 12.8 14.5 14.3 10.1 10.0 11.3 10.8 8.1

Race/Ethnicity—mark all that apply (total may add to more than 100%)

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.8 2.3 0.9 2.1 1.4 1.4 0.7 1.7Asian American/Asian 5.4 5.4 5.7 5.7 4.9 5.2 5.6 4.4Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3African American/Black 3.8 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.3 4.6 2.3 4.9Mexican American/Chicano 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.6Puerto Rican 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.4Other Latino 2.4 3.2 1.8 1.3 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.6White/Caucasian 86.4 86.0 84.5 88.3 87.3 87.1 89.0 86.6Other 3.6 4.3 3.4 2.7 3.0 2.7 2.3 3.6

37



CIRP Construct: Student-Centered PedagogyHigh Construct Score Group 22.6 20.7 18.3 24.9 28.9 29.3 26.4 29.9Average Construct Score Group 42.2 39.9 41.4 45.3 45.3 44.5 45.4 46.2Low Construct Score Group 35.1 39.4 40.2 29.8 25.7 26.2 28.2 23.9Mean Score 48.56 47.84 47.25 49.61 50.42 50.19 49.89 50.95

CIRP Construct: Undergraduate Education Goal— Personal Development

High Construct Score Group 24.3 21.1 20.1 27.1 32.7 25.3 36.1 39.0Average Construct Score Group 36.1 34.3 36.1 36.7 39.8 39.6 41.9 38.9Low Construct Score Group 39.6 44.6 43.8 36.2 27.5 35.1 22.0 22.1Mean Score 47.80 46.72 46.87 48.64 50.32 48.69 51.49 51.48

CIRP Construct: Scholarly ProductivityHigh Construct Score Group 38.1 45.3 57.7 21.7 19.6 23.2 20.7 15.1Average Construct Score Group 41.4 37.7 32.2 51.1 49.1 49.5 50.5 48.0Low Construct Score Group 20.4 17.0 10.1 27.3 31.3 27.2 28.8 36.9Mean Score 52.32 53.59 56.60 49.08 48.57 49.49 48.91 47.41

CIRP Construct: Civic Minded PracticeHigh Construct Score Group 25.0 23.0 19.1 32.2 27.7 25.0 27.2 31.0Average Construct Score Group 39.7 39.7 38.7 41.4 39.3 36.3 42.1 41.1Low Construct Score Group 35.3 37.3 42.2 26.4 32.9 38.7 30.7 27.9Mean Score 49.54 49.16 48.02 51.33 50.02 49.05 50.20 50.98

CIRP Construct: Civic Minded ValuesHigh Construct Score Group 24.2 21.4 20.6 27.4 30.7 26.6 35.7 32.6Average Construct Score Group 40.0 38.7 40.1 41.1 41.9 42.1 40.8 42.3Low Construct Score Group 35.8 39.9 39.3 31.5 27.4 31.3 23.5 25.1Mean Score 48.61 47.75 47.68 49.61 50.47 49.14 51.80 51.22

CIRP Construct: Job Satisfaction—WorkplaceHigh Construct Score Group 29.6 28.7 32.4 26.1 32.4 33.1 30.2 32.8Average Construct Score Group 42.5 42.2 40.2 44.4 43.4 42.1 46.1 43.5Low Construct Score Group 27.9 29.1 27.3 29.5 24.1 24.8 23.6 23.7Mean Score 49.69 49.29 50.45 48.98 50.59 50.53 50.55 50.68

CIRP Construct: Job Satisfaction—CompensationHigh Construct Score Group 32.0 30.7 47.0 24.1 28.4 29.9 28.2 26.8Average Construct Score Group 44.3 45.7 38.6 47.0 43.9 41.5 46.6 45.1Low Construct Score Group 23.7 23.6 14.4 28.9 27.7 28.6 25.3 28.1Mean Score 51.35 51.17 54.67 49.64 50.35 50.59 50.67 49.94

CIRP Construct: Career Related StressHigh Construct Score Group 31.5 32.5 28.5 34.3 29.1 30.9 28.3 27.6Average Construct Score Group 45.7 45.1 46.5 45.0 47.4 46.7 48.0 47.8Low Construct Score Group 22.8 22.4 25.0 20.7 23.5 22.4 23.7 24.6Mean Score 51.08 51.15 50.52 51.70 50.82 51.09 50.78 50.56

CIRP Construct: Institutional Priority—Commitment to DiversityHigh Construct Score Group 28.6 28.6 28.8 26.6 30.2 32.8 28.9 28.1Average Construct Score Group 36.6 35.3 35.2 39.5 37.8 37.6 37.9 38.0Low Construct Score Group 34.9 36.1 36.0 33.9 32.0 29.6 33.2 33.9Mean Score 49.62 49.61 49.31 49.46 50.09 50.67 49.89 49.56

38



CIRP Construct: Institutional Priority—Civic EngagementHigh Construct Score Group 25.3 22.4 22.7 31.5 27.8 23.9 36.4 27.5Average Construct Score Group 46.3 46.4 46.1 45.2 47.5 47.7 46.5 47.8Low Construct Score Group 28.4 31.2 31.2 23.3 24.7 28.4 17.1 24.7Mean Score 48.87 48.02 48.34 50.29 49.87 48.73 52.03 49.99

CIRP Construct: Institutional Priority—Increase PrestigeHigh Construct Score Group 37.9 44.1 59.6 16.8 24.1 26.9 24.0 21.2Average Construct Score Group 36.3 36.6 30.4 38.9 38.5 38.3 41.4 37.1Low Construct Score Group 25.8 19.2 10.0 44.3 37.4 34.7 34.7 41.7Mean Score 51.71 53.10 56.56 46.95 48.71 49.38 48.94 47.87

CIRP Construct: Social AgencyHigh Construct Score Group 23.6 22.1 18.9 28.5 26.3 23.4 28.7 28.1Average Construct Score Group 44.7 44.7 41.7 44.3 47.8 49.0 48.2 46.3Low Construct Score Group 31.8 33.2 39.5 27.2 26.0 27.6 23.1 25.6Mean Score 49.01 48.62 47.72 50.11 50.05 49.26 50.82 50.49

Note: CIRP Constructs have been scaled to a mean of 50 with a standard deviation of 10. “Low” represents faculty who scored one-half standard deviation or more below the mean (less than 45). “Average” represents faculty who scored within one-half standard deviation of the mean (45 to 55). “High” represents faculty who scored one-half standard deviation or more above the mean (higher than 55).

Full-Time Undergraduate Faculty, by Rank

41


All Bacc Full Assoc Asst No Institutions Professor Professor Professor Lecturer Instructor Response

Full-time Undergraduate Faculty—All Respondents 23,824 7,725 7,271 6,015 912 1,096 805What is your principal activity in your current position at this institution?

Administration 6.7 12.2 5.7 1.7 5.5 6.3 5.9Teaching 76.9 68.9 79.1 80.9 88.4 86.6 66.4Research 15.1 18.1 14.4 16.6 4.2 2.7 24.5Services to clients and patients 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 2.6 0.8Other 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.9 2.4

Are you considered a full-time employee of your institution for at least nine months of the current academic year?

Yes 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

What is your present academic rank?Professor 32.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Associate professor 25.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Assistant professor 26.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lecturer 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0Instructor 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

What is your tenure status at this institution?Tenured 54.5 94.6 85.3 7.0 2.3 1.3 1.8On tenure track, but not tenured 22.5 0.9 7.9 74.3 0.4 3.2 0.8Not on tenure track, but institution has tenure system 20.1 2.5 3.9 15.7 95.7 88.1 90.5Institution has no tenure system 2.9 2.1 2.9 3.0 1.6 7.5 6.9

Are you currently serving in an administrative position as:Department chair 9.9 19.1 12.2 2.3 1.4 1.1 6.5Dean (associate or assistant) 2.0 4.1 1.7 0.7 0.8 1.4 0.9President 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Vice-president 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0Provost 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Other 14.9 15.9 19.1 8.8 18.1 12.8 16.5Not applicable 65.0 54.8 58.7 75.1 74.7 80.0 69.8

Highest degree earnedBachelor’s (B.A., B.S., etc.) 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 2.9 6.6 1.2Master’s (M.A., M.S., M.F.A., M.B.A., etc.) 17.0 5.7 9.6 15.7 37.1 71.4 23.3LL.B., J.D. 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.8 1.4 1.1M.D., D.D.S. (or equivalent) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.7Other first professional degree beyond B.A. (e.g., D.D., D.V.M.) 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.8Ed.D. 2.4 1.9 3.1 2.5 2.8 0.9 2.7Ph.D. 76.3 89.1 84.1 78.7 53.9 16.3 66.3Other degree 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.3 0.8 2.2 2.9None 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1

42



Degree currently working onBachelor’s (B.A., B.S., etc.) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0Master’s (M.A., M.S., M.F.A., M.B.A., etc.) 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 2.2 7.3 1.3LL.B., J.D. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0M.D., D.D.S. (or equivalent) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8Other first professional degree beyond B.A. (e.g., D.D., D.V.M.) 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.0Ed.D. 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.6 2.0 3.2 0.7Ph.D. 3.7 0.4 1.5 4.1 7.7 20.5 3.2Other degree 0.9 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.5 4.6 0.7None 93.4 99.1 97.1 93.4 86.2 63.7 93.3

Noted as being personally “essential” or “very important”:Research 78.5 86.0 79.3 81.2 56.9 53.4 81.1Teaching 97.0 96.3 96.8 97.1 98.6 99.0 97.0Service 62.7 64.2 61.0 57.9 65.1 73.6 67.5

During the past two years, have you engaged in any of the following activities?

Taught an honors course 21.5 26.7 23.4 16.5 17.0 14.9 21.6Taught an interdisciplinary course 46.9 53.3 48.0 42.7 47.1 32.8 43.4Taught an ethnic studies course 11.2 9.4 13.2 12.6 11.1 8.6 9.7Taught a women’s studies course 7.2 6.5 9.7 7.2 5.3 4.9 5.3Taught a service learning course 18.0 16.8 19.6 16.8 22.3 18.5 16.4Taught an exclusively web-based course at this institution 14.0 10.7 16.3 13.9 20.2 15.0 13.5Participated in a teaching enhancement workshop 58.5 46.9 60.7 66.6 65.3 65.6 58.1Advised student groups involved in service/volunteer work 43.6 40.2 47.7 42.4 48.0 45.0 42.9Collaborated with the local community in research/teaching 42.5 40.1 46.0 41.8 40.6 38.7 50.8Conducted research or writing focused on international/global issues 31.8 36.8 33.8 31.2 22.0 18.1 28.2Conducted research or writing focused on racial or ethnic minorities 23.1 22.0 25.7 25.5 17.1 17.2 21.9Conducted research or writing focused on women and gender issues 20.6 19.3 23.9 23.0 14.5 14.3 18.0Engaged undergraduates on your research project 51.3 56.6 55.4 55.7 30.4 25.2 44.8Worked with undergraduates on a research project 66.1 71.9 70.0 66.7 54.2 43.5 57.9Engaged in academic research that spans multiple disciplines 65.5 74.1 69.1 65.3 47.1 36.0 63.7Taught a seminar for first-year students 26.5 27.4 27.7 24.1 27.1 25.9 27.5Taught a capstone course 35.8 40.8 42.6 31.2 23.8 14.7 41.4Taught in a learning community (e.g., FIG, linked courses) 8.2 6.8 8.9 6.7 10.9 9.4 15.3Supervised an undergraduate thesis 37.6 44.7 41.9 38.9 20.5 10.6 29.8Published op-ed pieces or editorials 15.2 18.9 15.7 12.8 11.2 11.2 12.9Received funding for your work from foundations 21.2 26.0 20.9 20.4 14.9 8.4 24.2Received funding for your work from state or federal government 29.7 38.9 30.7 26.7 14.4 11.4 32.1Received funding for your work from business or industry 10.8 15.8 10.7 6.8 6.3 5.7 15.3

How many courses are you teaching this term?Mean 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.1 2.3Median 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0Mode 2 2 2 2 3 3 2

Teach at least one course this term at another institution 3.1 2.2 2.7 2.8 6.3 7.2 1.7

43



Type of course taught this term “at this institution”General education course

Teach at least one course 25.5 22.8 23.9 27.7 35.0 32.0 17.3Mean student enrollment 47.9 54.6 45.1 45.2 56.4 32.4 48.6Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 24.8 28.2 24.7 22.1 29.7 15.2 29.6

Course required for an undergraduate majorTeach at least one course 69.8 63.2 71.4 76.1 69.3 69.5 72.1Mean student enrollment 35.7 36.6 33.6 32.1 49.0 35.0 40.7Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 24.3 28.7 23.4 20.9 26.0 17.0 30.0

Other undergraduate courseTeach at least one course 30.8 31.7 31.3 30.7 35.6 25.5 23.7Mean student enrollment 25.8 27.2 24.9 25.7 27.0 21.3 24.7Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 17.2 23.5 17.7 12.5 14.9 8.4 11.7

Developmental/remedial course (not for credit)Teach at least one course 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 4.3 0.5Mean student enrollment 28.1 20.6 75.4 21.7 38.2 17.9 27.7Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 17.8 16.6 23.8 31.2 26.3 6.6 35.1

Non-credit course (other than above)Teach at least one course 1.0 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.5 1.9Mean student enrollment 26.5 32.9 20.2 26.1 29.1 18.8 21.1Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 7.2 3.2 20.9 5.4 14.3 3.7 0.0

Graduate courseTeach at least one course 22.7 28.6 24.1 22.0 8.1 6.4 26.6Mean student enrollment 14.2 13.3 14.2 13.4 18.5 14.7 19.9Have teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned 7.7 9.6 3.7 7.9 18.2 1.9 8.1

What types of courses do you primarily teach? (based on faculty who indicated they were not teaching this term)

Undergraduate credit courses 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Graduate courses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Non-credit courses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0I do not teach 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Do you teach remedial/developmental skills in any of the following areas?

Reading 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.7 9.1 8.8 6.3Writing 14.0 12.6 12.2 15.0 19.7 16.9 13.4Mathematics 5.1 3.9 3.8 6.1 5.5 10.5 5.9ESL 1.1 0.5 0.6 1.4 2.2 3.5 0.6General academic skills 11.6 9.6 10.7 14.3 13.0 12.8 11.3Other subject areas 6.7 4.6 6.1 7.4 7.8 12.1 9.6

44



Have you engaged in any of the following professional development opportunities at your institution?Paid workshops outside the institution focused on teaching

Yes 22.9 21.7 26.7 20.5 21.3 25.9 22.7No 69.4 73.4 66.3 71.9 63.4 58.7 69.1Not eligible 1.8 0.3 0.5 1.1 6.8 9.4 2.4Not available 5.9 4.5 6.6 6.4 8.4 5.9 5.7

Paid sabbatical leaveYes 34.1 63.7 43.2 9.9 1.4 1.0 25.9No 46.2 32.4 48.0 59.8 45.0 47.4 52.0Not eligible 16.7 2.3 5.9 27.1 48.2 44.7 19.7Not available 3.0 1.6 2.9 3.2 5.4 7.0 2.4

Travel funds paid by the institutionYes 75.7 81.6 84.4 77.1 47.8 48.5 69.3No 20.1 16.6 14.0 19.6 36.8 36.4 25.0Not eligible 2.6 0.6 0.4 1.9 11.2 11.7 2.8Not available 1.7 1.1 1.2 1.4 4.1 3.3 2.8

Internal grants for researchYes 48.5 59.5 57.4 46.7 16.8 9.8 47.7No 46.0 38.3 39.9 49.3 64.5 68.0 47.3Not eligible 3.7 0.9 0.8 2.3 16.2 19.0 3.0Not available 1.8 1.3 1.9 1.8 2.6 3.2 1.9

Training for administrative leadershipYes 12.9 21.4 14.3 4.7 8.4 8.5 9.1No 75.7 72.7 75.7 82.9 66.1 70.2 78.5Not eligible 5.1 1.4 1.5 5.9 18.6 16.6 6.1Not available 6.3 4.5 8.5 6.4 7.0 4.8 6.4

Received incentives to develop new coursesYes 22.4 25.1 25.6 18.6 22.8 15.9 17.6No 69.2 70.6 67.0 72.2 62.6 65.0 70.7Not eligible 2.3 0.5 0.3 1.6 9.6 11.5 3.3Not available 6.2 3.8 7.1 7.6 5.0 7.6 8.4

Received incentives to integrate new technology into your classroom

Yes 18.0 19.5 20.8 14.5 18.3 18.3 13.3No 74.4 76.2 72.6 77.5 69.0 66.0 76.3Not eligible 1.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 6.7 8.3 3.4Not available 5.8 3.7 6.2 7.0 6.0 7.4 7.1

45



How many of the following have you published?Articles in academic or professional journals

None 18.3 6.6 10.1 20.2 44.7 59.0 24.31–2 17.8 7.9 16.1 27.2 24.8 26.6 16.43–4 12.9 7.8 15.2 18.8 15.3 4.9 10.75–10 17.3 14.7 24.1 19.5 9.7 6.7 15.811–20 13.3 17.2 18.3 10.6 3.3 2.2 10.121–50 12.1 23.7 13.0 3.2 1.5 0.4 13.051+ 8.3 22.2 3.3 0.4 0.7 0.2 9.7

Chapters in edited volumesNone 45.8 25.7 40.9 57.4 68.1 83.4 48.51–2 24.9 20.1 28.1 30.2 27.6 13.7 24.33–4 12.4 16.6 16.5 9.0 2.6 2.3 13.15–10 10.5 20.9 11.4 3.0 1.3 0.5 8.611–20 4.0 10.2 2.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 3.621–50 1.8 5.3 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.751+ 0.4 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Books, manuals, or monographsNone 62.2 39.7 60.5 77.9 79.1 87.4 67.61–2 23.8 26.7 30.9 19.4 18.7 10.4 21.83–4 7.7 17.2 6.1 2.1 1.7 0.7 5.35–10 4.8 12.6 2.0 0.4 0.4 1.3 3.811–20 1.2 3.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.621–50 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.951+ 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Other, such as patents or computer software productsNone 86.8 82.4 87.5 90.3 86.9 93.9 82.51–2 7.4 8.3 7.9 6.2 7.4 4.5 8.83–4 2.6 4.1 2.0 1.5 3.7 0.5 2.75–10 1.8 3.0 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.9 4.011–20 0.8 1.3 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.821–50 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.251+ 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.0 1.0

How many exhibitions or performances in the fine or applied arts have you presented in the last two years?

None 84.5 86.1 85.9 85.3 81.1 76.8 79.81–2 5.4 4.0 5.0 4.7 10.5 10.3 5.33–4 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 6.2 4.95–10 3.8 3.8 3.0 4.3 2.7 3.6 5.811–20 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.821–50 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.251+ 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.1

46



How many of your professional writings have been published or accepted for publication in the last two years?

None 28.1 16.4 23.7 26.6 55.6 67.8 32.71–2 30.5 27.1 34.3 33.3 33.0 24.5 24.53–4 21.9 24.9 24.1 25.7 6.3 6.0 18.85–10 14.7 22.9 13.9 12.3 4.3 0.9 15.111–20 3.5 5.7 3.4 1.9 0.7 0.6 6.921–50 1.0 2.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.151+ 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Do you, “to a great extent”:Feel that the training you received in graduate school prepared you

well for your role as a faculty member 49.0 55.3 46.9 48.7 36.8 40.3 52.0Achieve a healthy balance between your personal life and your

professional life 32.1 38.4 30.8 25.4 34.2 34.2 27.7Experience close alignment between your work and your

personal values 62.7 68.0 60.4 59.9 60.1 63.1 59.5Feel that you have to work harder than your colleagues to be perceived

as a legitimate scholar 28.2 20.7 29.7 29.1 39.4 36.2 33.7Mentor new faculty 20.7 33.4 24.4 8.8 8.2 10.1 19.1

In your interactions with undergraduates, how “frequently” do you encourage them to:

Ask questions in class 95.2 93.9 95.1 95.3 98.3 97.2 95.5Support their opinions with a logical argument 82.4 78.6 82.0 84.6 84.8 86.5 86.7Seek solutions to problems and explain them to others 71.9 69.1 70.7 70.7 75.6 81.7 80.0Revise their papers to improve their writing 55.2 54.8 56.1 54.0 55.2 60.1 52.4Evaluate the quality or reliability of information they receive 68.5 66.0 68.0 69.7 72.2 70.7 71.7Take risks for potential gains 37.2 34.9 36.7 35.1 45.8 43.8 42.8Seek alternative solutions to a problem 59.7 57.7 59.5 57.3 67.4 65.9 64.2Look up scientific research articles and resources 53.8 57.0 53.4 51.2 54.3 50.0 53.1Explore topics on their own, even though it was not required for a class 52.4 51.6 51.6 50.1 61.1 54.1 57.0Accept mistakes as part of the learning process 73.9 71.5 73.4 73.3 80.5 81.9 73.0Seek feedback on their academic work 73.4 70.8 74.1 73.0 78.3 77.3 74.8Integrate skills and knowledge from different sources and experiences 76.0 73.7 76.4 75.3 80.8 80.2 78.7

47



Methods you use in “all” or “most” of the courses you teach:Multiple-choice exams 29.3 24.0 28.2 31.3 36.3 41.2 29.4Essay exams 41.3 46.4 43.4 40.1 33.1 31.4 32.8Short-answer exams 44.9 43.0 46.8 45.8 47.1 47.8 36.1Quizzes 38.9 33.9 38.0 38.8 48.8 53.9 38.3Weekly essay assignments 20.2 18.8 20.5 19.5 24.2 22.8 20.5Student presentations 43.8 41.5 44.0 45.0 43.2 48.6 44.1Term/research papers 43.3 42.6 45.3 45.6 37.8 41.3 37.2Student evaluations of each others’ work 21.0 17.0 19.7 21.5 26.8 32.4 23.8Grading on a curve 17.3 22.9 14.7 14.8 16.9 10.0 18.7Competency-based grading 47.6 48.0 47.6 44.8 48.6 56.1 46.3Class discussions 82.2 77.1 82.6 86.8 81.9 86.1 83.3Cooperative learning (small groups) 56.7 45.8 56.5 61.8 65.5 76.2 58.6Experiential learning/Field studies 25.6 21.6 26.6 27.1 27.9 30.4 28.0Teaching assistants 12.7 14.1 11.2 12.1 18.3 9.6 10.1Recitals/Demonstrations 19.0 17.0 18.8 17.0 24.8 27.6 22.1Group projects 32.0 26.9 30.3 33.9 41.2 42.0 34.3Extensive lecturing 45.0 49.4 42.7 44.7 43.6 38.9 41.9Multiple drafts of written work 23.9 22.8 24.2 23.5 26.5 30.3 19.2Student-selected topics for course content 19.8 18.9 19.3 19.2 20.4 26.2 20.2Reflective writing/journaling 17.6 13.8 16.9 19.0 18.9 28.8 20.4Community service as part of coursework 5.9 4.6 6.4 6.2 6.8 8.4 5.5Electronic quizzes with immediate feedback in class 7.4 5.0 7.4 8.4 9.9 13.2 6.2Using real-life problems 55.4 49.8 56.8 56.3 59.0 66.4 58.2Using student inquiry to drive learning 45.8 39.3 44.9 48.5 52.4 58.4 48.7

Personal goals noted as “essential” or “very important”:Becoming an authority in my field 68.8 75.7 64.9 68.9 52.7 60.8 78.6Influencing the political structure 22.9 22.9 20.9 24.0 20.8 25.7 26.1Influencing social values 48.5 44.0 47.5 49.7 50.5 60.8 53.9Raising a family 72.9 75.6 71.5 71.7 71.9 71.8 72.5Becoming very well off financially 25.6 25.6 24.8 25.7 21.5 29.0 29.3Helping others who are in difficulty 72.2 68.3 72.1 72.5 73.9 84.2 75.9Adopting “green” practices to protect the environment 56.6 55.0 55.8 54.8 63.3 63.5 59.4Developing a meaningful philosophy of life 82.2 80.5 83.1 80.9 86.2 86.3 83.7Helping to promote racial understanding 72.2 71.7 71.1 71.0 76.2 78.5 72.0Integrating spirituality into my life 46.4 41.8 47.3 44.4 49.5 65.6 49.8Making a theoretical contribution to science 38.0 42.1 35.1 42.2 21.5 26.3 45.9Participating in a community action program 28.0 21.7 26.6 30.9 33.2 42.1 31.0Keeping up to date with political affairs 59.8 62.9 60.4 57.0 55.7 61.6 55.9Becoming a community leader 18.8 14.6 17.6 20.9 19.5 28.2 25.2Mentoring the next generation of scholars 77.7 79.9 74.7 78.9 73.6 75.7 81.6

48



Goals for undergraduates noted as “essential” or “very important”Develop ability to think critically 99.5 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.9 99.7 99.6Prepare students for employment after college 78.3 71.3 78.0 81.7 81.2 88.6 85.7Prepare students for graduate or advanced education 75.2 74.0 73.7 76.8 72.4 80.6 77.7Develop moral character 68.8 63.5 67.3 67.8 77.3 84.3 77.9Provide for students’ emotional development 50.4 44.9 47.0 50.0 60.9 71.4 58.1Teach students the classic works of Western civilization 27.9 31.0 26.8 24.7 26.3 31.0 27.9Help students develop personal values 64.1 60.2 62.9 63.1 70.8 78.4 69.1Enhance students’ self-understanding 71.0 64.8 70.7 72.1 75.6 85.3 76.7Instill in students a commitment to community service 44.5 38.9 43.5 45.3 45.8 64.2 50.0Enhance students’ knowledge of and appreciation for other

racial/ethnic groups 70.1 66.5 69.6 70.5 74.7 80.6 71.0Help master knowledge in a discipline 94.1 95.5 94.1 92.7 91.9 93.3 95.7Develop creative capacities 79.4 80.7 76.7 76.9 82.7 82.5 86.5Instill a basic appreciation of the liberal arts 66.7 69.6 67.1 64.2 63.3 66.6 64.7Promote ability to write effectively 91.3 91.9 91.8 91.3 87.8 91.6 89.8Help students evaluate the quality and reliability of information 95.7 95.8 95.1 96.1 96.8 95.4 94.6Engage students in civil discourse around controversial issues 66.7 64.4 66.4 69.9 66.1 69.6 62.6Teach students tolerance and respect for different beliefs 78.9 75.6 79.1 78.7 83.5 87.7 80.1Encourage students to become agents of social change 52.1 45.8 52.0 55.3 54.0 65.2 53.4

During the present term, how many hours per week on average do you actually spend on:Scheduled teaching (give actual, not credit hours)

None 5.8 8.2 6.2 3.6 2.9 3.7 7.41–4 15.8 19.6 14.7 12.0 14.6 13.2 21.85–8 34.6 37.8 34.7 37.2 24.9 20.9 34.69–12 28.6 23.6 30.0 31.1 36.1 36.3 19.713–16 9.2 6.6 8.8 10.2 14.3 14.2 8.817–20 3.7 2.8 2.8 4.2 5.8 7.5 3.821–34 1.7 1.1 2.3 1.4 1.3 3.3 3.235–44 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.645+ 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2

Preparing for teaching (including reading student papers and grading)

None 4.9 7.4 5.4 3.1 1.9 2.8 4.31–4 11.5 13.9 11.4 8.9 4.5 14.7 16.25–8 24.4 27.0 23.5 23.7 24.6 19.4 23.49–12 22.4 22.4 23.5 22.1 22.0 22.0 19.413–16 13.9 13.4 14.5 14.1 13.8 12.0 14.717–20 12.1 9.4 12.4 13.3 16.5 14.7 11.521–34 8.0 4.7 7.0 11.2 12.9 9.9 8.035–44 1.8 1.3 1.2 2.4 2.1 3.9 2.145+ 0.9 0.4 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.6 0.5

49



During the present term, how many hours per week on average do you actually spend on:Advising and counseling of students

None 4.4 3.1 4.0 4.1 8.3 7.3 5.31–4 56.7 55.4 55.6 60.2 53.3 59.5 54.35–8 27.1 28.7 28.5 26.5 24.4 21.6 24.59–12 7.8 8.8 8.3 6.5 7.0 5.2 10.113–16 2.2 2.8 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.217–20 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 3.4 1.8 1.821–34 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.2 2.4 1.635–44 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.145+ 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Committee work and meetingsNone 7.6 3.4 4.4 7.3 22.2 22.3 8.11–4 58.0 51.4 54.1 67.8 61.9 61.2 56.65–8 23.7 29.9 28.5 18.8 9.7 12.0 24.89–12 6.8 9.4 8.0 4.3 5.3 2.9 5.713–16 2.2 3.2 3.0 1.1 0.5 0.6 2.217–20 1.3 1.9 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.9 2.521–34 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.035–44 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.045+ 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other administrationNone 30.6 23.3 25.4 37.4 39.6 46.9 29.31–4 39.7 35.8 41.3 45.8 38.5 31.0 38.55–8 13.8 17.3 15.5 9.1 11.5 10.1 17.09–12 6.6 8.2 8.3 4.1 4.7 5.4 5.913–16 3.4 5.5 3.3 1.5 2.5 1.8 3.917–20 2.7 4.3 3.1 1.0 1.2 2.1 2.921–34 2.3 4.5 1.9 0.5 1.5 1.7 2.135–44 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.245+ 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2

Research and scholarly writingNone 13.1 7.2 10.0 9.7 34.1 38.4 14.71–4 30.3 26.8 33.3 28.3 37.6 38.4 26.65–8 19.2 20.5 21.1 20.8 11.2 10.5 17.19–12 12.9 14.4 12.9 15.9 5.7 4.6 10.913–16 6.9 9.0 6.7 7.4 2.6 1.8 5.717–20 6.0 7.6 6.2 5.3 2.7 2.2 8.921–34 6.3 8.1 4.4 7.9 4.4 2.2 5.735–44 3.4 4.2 3.1 2.8 1.3 1.0 7.945+ 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.9 0.5 0.8 2.5

50



During the present term, how many hours per week on average do you actually spend on:Other creative products/performances

None 59.0 61.0 62.7 60.9 48.1 47.0 52.31–4 25.2 23.7 22.9 25.0 29.9 33.7 26.75–8 8.5 8.7 8.3 7.4 9.6 9.9 10.79–12 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.0 9.4 4.2 6.413–16 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.1 0.417–20 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.3 3.9 1.121–34 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.335–44 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.345+ 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.8

Consultation with clients/patientsNone 84.1 85.8 85.4 85.0 83.4 72.1 80.81–4 10.7 9.6 10.4 10.2 11.5 16.1 13.05–8 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.7 1.7 6.3 3.69–12 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.8 2.0 1.813–16 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.8 0.217–20 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.221–34 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.435–44 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.145+ 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0

Community or public serviceNone 46.6 44.8 42.9 53.4 48.0 41.6 45.41–4 43.7 44.9 46.9 38.7 41.3 47.0 44.65–8 7.1 7.4 7.7 5.9 7.2 8.4 7.29–12 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.2 2.5 1.9 1.913–16 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.517–20 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.321–34 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.035–44 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.045+ 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

Outside consulting/freelance workNone 72.5 67.8 73.1 77.8 73.4 70.4 73.01–4 21.2 25.2 20.5 17.2 21.4 21.9 18.95–8 4.4 5.0 4.4 3.4 4.0 4.6 5.89–12 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.9 1.613–16 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.217–20 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.221–34 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.035–44 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.045+ 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

51



During the present term, how many hours per week on average do you actually spend on:Household/childcare duties

None 9.2 10.1 8.3 7.4 10.9 11.1 11.21–4 17.9 17.3 17.9 19.5 13.7 18.2 19.45–8 25.2 29.9 21.6 24.3 22.4 23.5 25.79–12 16.1 18.1 17.8 12.8 15.5 16.6 13.613–16 8.7 8.6 8.9 8.4 11.3 7.0 8.917–20 8.6 7.8 10.3 8.7 10.7 6.2 6.121–34 5.9 4.6 6.4 7.5 4.5 5.4 6.035–44 4.1 2.0 4.0 5.4 7.4 5.4 4.045+ 4.1 1.6 4.7 6.0 3.6 6.6 5.1

Commuting to campusNone 7.5 7.4 7.0 7.9 6.8 9.7 7.41–4 58.6 60.9 58.3 59.9 54.6 54.5 52.35–8 24.2 24.2 24.1 22.5 27.0 22.2 30.69–12 7.7 6.3 8.5 7.5 10.4 10.1 7.113–16 1.5 0.7 1.6 1.7 0.9 3.4 1.917–20 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.321–34 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.035–44 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.045+ 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3

Other employment, outside of academiaNone 89.5 91.3 90.6 90.7 83.9 79.9 88.01–4 5.7 5.7 5.2 4.8 7.8 8.5 5.75–8 2.3 1.5 2.2 2.1 3.2 4.8 3.29–12 1.1 0.5 0.9 1.2 2.2 2.2 1.313–16 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.217–20 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 1.5 0.421–34 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.735–44 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.145+ 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4

General activitiesAre you a member of a faculty union? 26.3 22.2 28.2 26.7 23.3 12.6 59.7Are you a U.S. citizen? 92.0 96.2 94.0 86.7 91.9 91.6 85.3Do you plan to retire within the next three years? 9.8 18.2 8.5 3.1 7.9 5.9 6.4Do you use your scholarship to address local community needs? 37.4 38.8 38.8 33.9 37.9 35.8 40.8Have you been sexually harassed at this institution? 4.7 5.6 5.6 3.1 4.8 2.6 5.2Have you ever interrupted your professional career for more than

one year for family reasons? 10.9 5.7 10.7 12.8 18.1 19.0 11.6Have you ever received an award for outstanding teaching? 42.6 54.0 42.4 33.7 39.3 28.9 42.5Is (or was) your spouse/partner an academic? 33.5 38.7 35.0 28.6 29.6 28.1 32.6

During the past two years, have you:Considered early retirement? 19.8 31.0 22.5 8.1 16.7 10.4 15.6Considered leaving academe for another job? 31.5 22.0 32.5 34.2 47.4 40.6 34.6Considered leaving this institution for another? 47.3 45.0 50.8 48.6 47.1 39.3 49.7Changed academic institutions? 16.7 8.2 9.7 28.1 22.4 23.2 25.7Engaged in paid consulting outside of your institution? 36.4 46.1 35.6 27.5 38.6 29.3 32.5Engaged in public service/professional consulting without pay? 57.1 64.1 58.4 50.5 52.3 50.3 57.2Received at least one firm job offer? 25.3 18.4 18.0 34.0 32.7 36.6 31.9Requested/sought an early promotion? 7.9 7.1 10.5 6.6 8.3 6.9 7.4

52



If you were to begin your career again, would you:Still want to come to this institution?

Definitely yes 36.3 36.5 30.5 39.4 35.8 48.5 31.3Probably yes 33.8 34.0 35.0 32.7 37.3 29.8 32.1Not sure 16.8 15.9 18.7 16.4 15.2 13.8 20.6Probably no 8.0 9.1 9.1 6.4 6.1 5.3 10.2Definitely no 5.2 4.5 6.7 5.0 5.6 2.6 5.8

Still want to be a college professor? Definitely yes 61.6 67.6 60.6 59.8 50.0 59.0 59.7Probably yes 26.3 21.8 27.9 28.0 32.8 26.6 26.9Not sure 8.9 7.8 8.5 8.6 13.1 10.4 10.6Probably no 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.8 3.2 2.8 1.7Definitely no 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1

Attributes noted as being “very descriptive” of your institutionIt is easy for students to see faculty outside of regular office hours 53.5 55.9 52.8 56.9 38.6 56.4 44.0The faculty are typically at odds with campus administration 19.5 17.9 23.4 19.1 15.9 17.5 20.7Faculty here respect each other 48.2 47.6 44.9 55.1 44.6 50.1 37.9Most students are treated like “numbers in a book” 4.9 3.4 5.0 4.2 8.7 5.7 9.7Faculty are rewarded for being good teachers 16.5 16.5 15.0 20.2 13.5 16.4 10.7There is respect for the expression of diverse values and beliefs 35.7 37.1 31.6 39.1 34.6 37.6 29.4Faculty are rewarded for their efforts to use instructional technology 14.7 13.8 15.2 15.2 13.2 17.3 13.4Administrators consider faculty concerns when making policy 14.6 15.6 12.4 15.1 13.2 19.7 11.8The administration is open about its policies 16.7 15.7 14.8 18.8 15.2 23.6 14.2

Factors noted as a source of stress for you during the last two years

Managing household responsibilities 74.7 65.5 76.3 81.4 80.3 78.5 76.4Child care 55.7 41.9 59.8 68.5 62.4 55.2 54.7Care of elderly parent 49.9 53.7 52.5 43.1 48.1 47.5 47.9My physical health 54.0 54.8 54.1 51.7 54.2 58.2 54.7Health of spouse/partner 44.3 45.6 45.0 43.8 42.1 42.3 40.2Review/promotion process 57.8 29.1 65.0 79.0 63.4 50.7 68.1Subtle discrimination (e.g., prejudice, racism, sexism) 28.3 23.1 32.2 30.5 29.2 24.1 33.2Personal finances 65.7 52.7 65.8 75.5 73.5 79.5 64.6Committee work 62.0 66.5 72.7 55.0 36.8 47.4 64.5Faculty meetings 53.9 57.9 62.3 48.1 37.4 38.0 59.6Colleagues 61.7 67.6 67.7 55.5 50.0 46.9 64.5Students 60.6 55.0 60.8 67.1 62.8 62.3 56.2Research or publishing demands 70.7 61.3 76.6 83.7 54.8 49.2 74.2Institutional procedures and “red tape” 71.3 74.8 73.3 68.7 67.9 59.8 71.7Teaching load 62.6 53.6 65.7 69.7 68.2 59.5 63.7Children’s problems 48.0 49.5 50.0 44.5 52.0 46.1 40.8Friction with spouse/partner 33.2 27.9 33.4 38.2 37.1 37.4 30.2Lack of personal time 82.2 78.1 83.3 86.7 82.1 78.4 84.5Keeping up with information technology 52.1 58.8 54.3 43.1 49.9 52.7 48.1Job security 39.2 12.2 30.0 59.2 73.7 70.2 50.8Being part of a dual career couple 49.8 39.9 52.0 59.0 51.9 52.5 50.6Working with underprepared students 75.3 70.2 75.9 79.5 79.1 77.8 74.1Self-imposed high expectations 84.8 81.6 85.4 88.5 85.5 82.3 85.4Change in work responsibilities 49.7 42.7 50.8 51.6 56.0 52.7 63.5Institutional budget cuts 74.2 75.2 76.0 69.1 74.0 74.3 84.2

53



Aspects of your job with which you are “very satisfied” or “satisfied”:

Salary 48.6 60.6 44.7 45.9 37.3 30.4 49.4Health benefits 71.4 73.3 67.7 70.8 73.6 64.8 83.8Retirement benefits 68.5 70.4 63.8 71.9 66.6 63.2 71.1Opportunity for scholarly pursuits 58.8 69.2 53.3 54.7 47.0 55.1 61.6Teaching load 58.7 64.8 55.4 54.5 57.4 60.8 57.0Quality of students 53.8 57.6 51.0 51.2 51.3 58.5 53.7Office/lab space 70.3 75.3 68.9 67.2 65.7 69.6 69.2Autonomy and independence 85.6 88.1 84.9 84.7 85.0 85.5 79.6Professional relationships with other faculty 76.7 77.4 73.6 80.2 71.8 80.6 71.9Social relationships with other faculty 65.6 64.3 64.6 67.8 63.8 70.3 63.3Competency of colleagues 78.7 80.8 74.9 80.1 79.6 80.7 74.3Job security 73.4 92.2 82.6 61.6 38.2 45.6 64.0Departmental leadership 68.5 69.3 63.6 70.5 71.4 74.2 65.3Course assignments 82.6 86.5 81.7 80.6 81.7 80.9 77.0Freedom to determine course content 91.8 95.3 92.8 91.2 85.2 85.1 87.8Availability of child care at this institution 26.5 34.4 23.2 22.3 14.4 29.6 44.2Prospects for career advancement 54.2 64.7 51.9 58.9 25.8 34.8 50.8Clerical/administrative support 57.8 54.5 50.6 62.7 71.5 69.8 52.5Overall job satisfaction 74.7 79.6 70.0 74.5 72.0 76.1 70.0Tuition remission for your children/dependents 66.2 69.6 61.1 62.4 71.0 66.7 77.5

Do you agree “strongly” or “somewhat”?Faculty are interested in students’ personal problems 81.3 81.3 81.6 83.6 75.7 85.2 72.6Racial and ethnic diversity should be more strongly reflected in

the curriculum 53.3 47.3 55.0 56.6 51.6 63.2 54.3Faculty feel that most students are well-prepared academically 39.7 41.8 35.6 38.9 41.1 46.3 39.5This institution should hire more faculty of color 71.9 74.2 75.3 71.6 62.5 63.1 70.0This institution should hire more women faculty 60.5 63.1 61.9 60.1 54.0 52.2 61.0Student Affairs staff have the support and respect of faculty 76.2 72.7 72.5 80.3 79.9 84.9 78.1Faculty are committed to the welfare of this institution 90.2 89.8 90.1 92.1 87.7 93.3 84.1Faculty here are strongly interested in the academic problems

of undergraduates 86.0 85.7 85.5 89.4 81.9 88.1 76.4There is a lot of campus racial conflict here 9.3 6.6 9.9 11.1 9.2 10.3 12.5My research is valued by faculty in my department 75.0 79.1 72.6 80.0 58.3 64.5 74.1My teaching is valued by faculty in my department 88.2 88.7 86.8 90.0 85.5 90.0 84.9Faculty of color are treated fairly here 90.2 91.8 85.4 90.9 94.0 96.8 86.3Women faculty are treated fairly here 88.1 89.8 83.9 88.1 89.8 94.8 85.9Gay and lesbian faculty are treated fairly here 86.5 87.4 82.7 86.4 93.0 88.3 87.0Faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision making 56.1 53.2 50.0 61.6 62.1 64.1 57.2My values are congruent with the dominant institutional values 72.1 71.9 67.8 76.4 68.4 81.7 65.6This institution takes responsibility for educating

underprepared students 64.3 64.0 63.9 63.9 63.7 75.4 58.0The criteria for advancement and promotion decisions are clear 71.0 80.1 67.3 66.9 62.4 65.7 74.1Most of the students I teach lack the basic skills for college level work 36.7 29.2 36.3 43.2 42.2 45.3 32.8There is adequate support for faculty development 63.5 62.9 57.7 66.8 62.5 73.0 66.2

54



Issues you believe to be of “highest” or “high” priority at your institution:

To promote the intellectual development of students 79.6 80.3 77.4 80.2 77.2 86.1 77.1To develop a sense of community among students and faculty 53.3 51.0 51.4 55.5 50.6 69.6 47.2To facilitate student involvement in community service 42.9 41.1 41.9 45.8 40.6 53.8 34.7To help students learn how to bring about change in society 34.5 31.4 32.5 39.5 31.4 44.8 29.8To increase or maintain institutional prestige 71.3 72.7 69.9 69.9 69.7 76.2 72.8To hire faculty “stars” 37.2 40.4 34.4 33.5 43.3 37.7 39.2To recruit more minority students 46.1 51.9 44.1 41.9 45.1 45.3 43.3To enhance the institution’s national image 74.6 76.4 72.6 72.6 73.8 75.4 80.9To create a diverse multi-cultural campus environment 49.7 52.3 45.7 47.4 51.9 56.6 51.1To promote gender equity among faculty 46.5 54.7 40.9 43.7 42.0 49.0 41.8To provide resources for faculty to engage in community-based

teaching or research 29.2 23.7 26.1 33.9 33.8 41.8 30.6To create and sustain partnerships with surrounding communities 41.9 36.9 38.8 46.7 45.5 53.5 43.0To pursue extramural funding 65.9 71.3 62.1 62.0 68.9 61.2 72.6To increase the representation of minorities in the faculty

and administration 39.0 44.3 35.6 36.2 36.0 40.5 39.5To strengthen links with the for-profit, corporate sector 48.7 47.8 47.1 43.9 57.2 56.5 60.6To develop leadership ability among students 51.4 50.3 46.6 52.2 53.8 68.3 49.6To increase the representation of women in the faculty

and administration 34.8 41.8 30.8 31.6 28.3 37.1 33.3To develop an appreciation for multiculturalism 49.9 51.4 46.2 49.9 51.2 58.3 45.4

Do you agree “strongly” or “somewhat”?The chief benefit of a college education is that it increases one’s

earning power 55.2 51.6 53.1 56.7 54.5 69.4 60.2Promoting diversity leads to the admission of too many

underprepared students 24.4 24.4 22.1 24.2 25.1 28.7 27.9Colleges should be actively involved in solving social problems 74.7 72.0 75.2 77.4 73.5 78.3 72.0Colleges should encourage students to be involved in community

service activities 87.0 83.2 85.9 90.2 90.0 94.3 85.8A racially/ethnically diverse student body enhances the educational

experience of all students 94.9 94.5 95.0 96.1 93.8 94.6 92.9Realistically, an individual can do little to bring about changes in society 19.3 20.6 18.9 18.2 18.0 19.3 20.7Colleges should be concerned with facilitating undergraduate students’

spiritual development 31.9 30.1 33.0 32.0 27.6 40.2 32.9Colleges have a responsibility to work with their surrounding

communities to address local issues 87.7 85.1 87.2 89.8 88.9 92.9 86.2Private funding sources often prevent researchers from being

completely objective in the conduct of their work 57.6 55.8 57.1 55.5 67.1 61.6 61.7Colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus 63.1 59.0 58.6 68.0 66.4 71.1 69.3This institution should not offer remedial/developmental education 21.8 26.4 21.8 18.1 20.2 17.9 20.7

55



Your base institutional salary9/10 month contract

Less than $20,000 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.2 0.5$20,000–$29,999 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 4.1 0.3$30,000–$39,999 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.9 9.2 38.5 0.9$40,000–$49,999 10.7 1.0 3.3 15.0 44.8 34.5 10.4$50,000–$59,999 18.9 3.2 18.7 38.3 18.6 15.0 21.8$60,000–$69,999 17.4 8.9 27.4 22.3 10.8 3.5 20.4$70,000–$79,999 13.9 12.4 22.1 12.7 7.0 0.4 15.2$80,000–$89,999 10.0 14.5 13.6 4.7 4.6 1.4 10.5$90,000–$99,999 7.4 14.3 6.5 3.2 2.0 0.3 7.0$100,000–$124,999 10.0 23.6 6.5 2.1 0.2 0.1 8.4$125,000–$149,999 3.7 10.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.4$150,000 or more 3.9 11.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 3.1

11/12 month contractLess than $20,000 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.3$20,000–$29,999 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.4 2.7 0.4$30,000–$39,999 2.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 10.3 15.7 0.5$40,000–$49,999 10.3 0.3 2.9 11.8 27.3 32.5 21.6$50,000–$59,999 16.7 1.3 12.7 32.7 19.8 20.5 29.3$60,000–$69,999 18.0 6.4 20.3 32.3 13.4 14.9 17.0$70,000–$79,999 10.9 8.4 16.8 9.3 12.8 8.1 7.9$80,000–$89,999 9.0 10.2 14.9 6.0 6.3 3.6 4.7$90,000–$99,999 8.2 10.8 15.1 3.9 2.7 0.9 6.7$100,000–$124,999 11.9 29.3 10.1 2.7 0.7 1.0 6.5$125,000–$149,999 6.0 16.7 4.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 2.8$150,000 or more 5.3 15.5 2.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.3

Your base institutional salary reported above is based on:Less than 9 months 4.4 4.1 3.7 4.6 6.1 5.7 3.99/10 months 71.1 72.7 72.9 71.8 66.4 61.8 68.911/12 months 24.5 23.2 23.4 23.6 27.5 32.5 27.2

What percentage of your current year’s income comes from:Base salary from this institution

100% 45.2 37.5 45.1 52.3 42.8 51.6 51.475% to 99% 44.4 51.6 46.4 39.2 38.0 34.7 39.674% to 50% 8.2 9.4 7.1 6.5 13.7 9.5 6.025% to 49% 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.6 3.5 3.4 1.61% to 24% 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.5 0.8 1.10% 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2

Other income from this institution100% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.075% to 99% 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.774% to 50% 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.5 0.025% to 49% 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.9 7.3 3.1 3.71% to 24% 29.6 32.2 32.8 28.1 24.7 23.6 22.60% 65.8 63.3 62.9 68.0 66.4 72.6 73.1

56



What percentage of your current year’s income comes from:Income from another academic institution

100% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.075% to 99% 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.074% to 50% 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.025% to 49% 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.81% to 24% 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.6 5.7 6.3 3.70% 93.5 93.8 94.1 92.6 92.8 92.5 95.5

Non-academic income100% 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.375% to 99% 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.5 1.5 0.974% to 50% 1.9 1.6 1.3 2.1 3.7 3.0 1.725% to 49% 4.8 5.9 3.9 4.3 5.3 6.6 2.81% to 24% 25.7 33.9 25.4 18.8 22.7 18.0 26.80% 67.0 58.2 69.1 74.6 66.7 70.8 67.6

Please enter the four-digit year that each of the following occurred.Year of birth

1981 or later 2.5 0.0 0.0 5.4 2.6 10.0 3.91976–1980 9.7 0.0 1.8 25.8 14.4 13.9 12.41971–1975 10.9 0.9 11.4 21.3 13.4 11.7 11.71966–1970 14.0 5.5 19.7 17.6 14.1 16.6 15.51961–1965 12.5 10.0 18.5 9.0 15.4 13.2 11.51956–1960 14.0 18.3 16.6 7.1 13.1 12.6 13.91951–1955 16.1 27.1 14.7 7.4 10.5 12.0 14.51946–1950 12.8 22.4 11.8 4.3 12.4 7.4 10.31941–1945 5.5 11.5 4.3 1.2 3.2 2.1 3.91940 or earlier 2.1 4.3 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.6 2.3

Year of highest degree now held 1973 or earlier 4.8 10.2 2.8 1.0 3.5 1.7 5.71974–1978 7.1 15.3 4.3 2.0 4.2 3.6 4.51979–1983 9.7 20.9 6.3 1.8 6.9 5.7 7.31984–1988 10.8 20.2 9.9 3.0 6.2 6.9 9.91989–1993 12.6 18.1 16.7 4.2 11.6 8.1 9.61994–1998 14.0 11.8 22.4 8.3 12.3 17.6 13.61999–2003 15.0 2.4 28.3 17.1 13.5 15.6 19.42004–2008 17.4 0.7 8.3 40.6 29.4 25.9 17.72009 or later 8.6 0.4 1.1 22.1 12.5 15.0 12.4

Year of appointment at present institution 1973 or earlier 1.7 3.2 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.2 2.31974–1978 2.6 6.5 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.6 1.31979–1983 5.9 13.9 4.2 0.6 2.0 1.1 3.71984–1988 8.9 19.5 7.9 1.7 2.6 0.9 5.11989–1993 10.4 19.9 11.2 2.3 5.6 3.1 5.61994–1998 11.6 17.5 16.0 3.0 7.5 5.7 10.11999–2003 14.3 10.9 28.0 5.4 15.4 12.1 15.42004–2008 22.9 5.9 23.3 38.2 32.5 32.8 22.42009 or later 21.6 2.7 6.7 47.3 33.6 43.4 34.1

57



Please enter the four-digit year that each of the following occurred.If tenured, year tenure was awarded

1973 or earlier 1.4 1.9 0.3 5.0 1.6 5.9 2.21974–1978 2.4 3.6 0.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.51979–1983 5.1 7.9 1.7 2.6 2.2 0.0 3.81984–1988 9.7 14.6 4.1 0.9 0.0 9.9 8.01989–1993 13.9 19.1 7.1 14.0 0.0 2.8 11.11994–1998 18.0 23.6 11.3 10.0 2.3 11.4 17.81999–2003 16.2 18.0 14.9 9.6 3.7 5.4 14.92004–2008 20.3 9.8 34.1 16.4 77.8 16.6 28.22009 or later 12.9 1.4 25.8 38.6 12.4 48.0 11.6

Aggregated MajorAgriculture or Forestry (General Area 1) 1.8 2.9 1.6 1.5 0.6 1.7 0.4Biological Sciences (General Area 5) 6.9 8.1 7.2 6.5 5.8 6.0 3.3Business (General Area 6) 4.6 4.1 5.2 4.1 5.0 6.6 4.4Education (General Area 10 and Specific Discipline 2102) 7.5 5.2 8.1 7.9 7.6 12.8 8.5Engineering (General Area 11) 4.8 6.1 3.9 3.9 5.5 1.6 8.6English (General Area 12) 6.8 7.0 6.6 5.5 7.8 11.9 5.7Health-related (General Area 15) 4.6 2.0 4.4 6.1 3.8 8.2 9.2History or Political Science (Specific Discipline 3007, 3009) 7.5 8.2 8.9 7.3 7.5 2.2 5.1Humanities (General Area 14, 24) 10.0 9.8 9.7 10.6 12.7 11.1 5.7Fine Arts (General Area 2, 4, 22) 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.1 4.6 11.2Mathematics or Statistics (General Area 18) 4.7 5.3 3.5 4.0 5.6 8.3 4.5Physical Sciences (General Area 25) 7.2 9.3 7.3 5.8 5.1 3.5 8.0Social Sciences (General Area 3, 26, 27 and Specific Discipline 3001,

3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3008, 3010, 3011, 3012) 14.7 15.2 14.5 17.6 11.1 8.6 11.7Other Technical (General Area 8, 19, 28) 2.5 1.9 3.1 1.7 4.6 2.8 3.0Other Non-technical (General Area 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 29, 31, 32

and Specific Discipline 2101, 2103) 8.9 7.5 8.5 9.9 10.2 10.1 10.5Aggregated Department

Agriculture or Forestry (General Area 1) 1.7 3.1 1.7 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.5Biological Sciences (General Area 5) 6.4 7.4 6.4 5.6 6.9 6.1 3.6Business (General Area 6) 5.6 5.2 6.7 4.9 5.9 6.0 4.9Education (General Area 10 and Specific Discipline 2102) 4.9 3.2 5.1 6.1 3.9 6.8 6.6Engineering (General Area 11) 5.2 6.8 4.8 3.8 5.1 1.6 8.6English (General Area 12) 7.0 7.0 6.6 6.1 6.3 12.6 7.5Health-related (General Area 15) 5.3 2.9 5.7 6.8 3.7 8.2 9.4History or Political Science (Specific Discipline 3007, 3009) 7.3 8.1 8.3 7.1 7.5 1.6 5.6Humanities (General Area 14, 24) 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.7 14.0 10.5 6.2Fine Arts (General Area 2, 4, 22) 7.7 7.6 8.1 7.8 7.3 4.8 11.1Mathematics or Statistics (General Area 18) 4.7 4.9 3.5 4.0 5.6 9.5 3.9Physical Sciences (General Area 25) 6.6 8.6 6.6 5.7 4.7 3.7 5.7Social Sciences (General Area 3, 26, 27 and Specific Discipline 3001,

3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3008, 3010, 3011, 3012) 13.3 13.7 12.8 17.4 8.6 6.4 9.7Other Technical (General Area 8, 19, 28) 2.8 1.9 3.3 2.4 5.5 3.4 3.2Other Non-technical (General Area 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 29, 31, 32

and Specific Discipline 2101, 2103) 11.6 10.2 11.1 10.8 14.5 17.8 13.5

58



How many children do you have in the following age ranges?Under 18 years old

0 61.8 71.1 55.9 57.4 57.3 62.2 61.51 18.2 16.5 18.7 20.4 21.1 13.2 17.22 15.2 9.4 19.7 16.2 17.9 16.4 16.83 3.4 2.1 3.9 4.2 2.3 6.0 3.34+ 1.4 0.8 1.8 1.8 1.4 2.2 1.1

18 years or older 0 60.9 37.4 64.4 82.5 64.6 66.4 65.41 12.2 18.7 12.9 4.8 12.6 10.5 8.52 16.5 27.8 12.7 7.9 13.1 14.1 17.23 6.6 10.0 6.6 3.0 5.6 5.7 6.34+ 3.8 6.1 3.3 1.8 4.0 3.4 2.6

How would you characterize your political views?Far left 12.4 11.8 13.8 13.9 11.7 5.6 11.3Liberal 50.3 54.9 50.4 48.7 46.2 42.3 47.6Middle of the road 25.4 23.4 24.0 25.9 27.8 32.3 29.3Conservative 11.5 9.7 11.5 11.2 13.4 19.0 11.6Far right 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.2

Are you currently: (Mark one)Single 11.4 5.8 10.8 16.3 11.5 17.0 15.6Married 75.6 82.1 75.9 71.8 72.2 68.6 68.2Unmarried, living with partner 5.8 4.3 6.4 6.5 6.4 5.1 8.3Divorced 5.1 5.8 5.0 4.0 6.6 5.4 5.0Widowed 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.7 1.8 1.4 1.4Separated 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.4 2.5 1.4

Is English your native language?Yes 87.2 91.5 88.6 84.4 85.7 84.6 76.6No 12.8 8.5 11.4 15.6 14.3 15.4 23.4

Race/Ethnicity—mark all that apply (total may add to more than 100)

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.8 1.2 2.1 1.4 1.5 5.6 1.7Asian American/Asian 5.4 4.1 4.1 7.4 2.4 7.0 10.9Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.5African American/Black 3.8 1.6 4.7 5.4 2.7 4.9 5.1Mexican American/Chicano 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 2.1Puerto Rican 0.6 0.2 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.7Other Latino 2.4 1.5 2.4 2.1 3.1 4.9 5.1White/Caucasian 86.4 90.8 87.1 83.4 88.7 79.3 79.6Other 3.6 2.7 3.5 3.6 4.3 5.9 4.8

59



CIRP Construct: Student-Centered PedagogyHigh Construct Score Group 22.6 18.0 21.5 23.4 27.2 36.8 25.5Average Construct Score Group 42.2 38.5 44.1 45.9 44.4 36.1 42.9Low Construct Score Group 35.1 43.4 34.4 30.7 28.4 27.1 31.6Mean Score 48.56 46.99 48.60 49.19 49.68 51.23 49.39

CIRP Construct: Undergraduate Education Goal— Personal Development

High Construct Score Group 24.3 19.3 22.6 25.4 27.8 42.0 26.9Average Construct Score Group 36.1 36.0 35.7 34.8 39.9 35.4 40.7Low Construct Score Group 39.6 44.7 41.6 39.9 32.3 22.5 32.4Mean Score 47.80 46.47 47.36 47.96 49.44 51.86 49.04

CIRP Construct: Scholarly ProductivityHigh Construct Score Group 38.1 65.1 40.9 22.5 4.6 3.1 36.9Average Construct Score Group 41.4 27.6 46.3 54.8 48.4 32.0 38.0Low Construct Score Group 20.4 7.3 12.8 22.6 47.0 64.9 25.1Mean Score 52.32 57.96 53.04 49.61 45.11 42.80 51.91

CIRP Construct: Civic Minded PracticeHigh Construct Score Group 25.0 25.4 26.1 24.0 24.7 24.1 24.2Average Construct Score Group 39.7 40.0 44.1 34.8 39.3 38.9 43.6Low Construct Score Group 35.3 34.7 29.7 41.2 36.1 36.9 32.2Mean Score 49.54 49.59 50.20 48.76 49.46 49.37 50.20

CIRP Construct: Civic Minded ValuesHigh Construct Score Group 24.2 18.6 23.3 27.3 27.9 35.5 25.7Average Construct Score Group 40.0 39.0 41.1 38.8 39.9 43.1 42.7Low Construct Score Group 35.8 42.4 35.5 34.0 32.2 21.3 31.6Mean Score 48.61 46.94 48.56 49.31 49.44 52.20 49.24

CIRP Construct: Job Satisfaction—WorkplaceHigh Construct Score Group 29.6 31.7 25.9 31.1 30.5 30.4 24.5Average Construct Score Group 42.5 41.8 42.9 42.9 40.7 46.2 40.6Low Construct Score Group 27.9 26.5 31.2 26.0 28.8 23.4 35.0Mean Score 49.69 50.18 48.78 50.01 49.91 50.42 48.20

CIRP Construct: Job Satisfaction—CompensationHigh Construct Score Group 32.0 44.3 29.3 28.6 16.9 17.0 29.2Average Construct Score Group 44.3 42.1 46.2 46.7 39.4 42.5 45.9Low Construct Score Group 23.7 13.6 24.5 24.7 43.6 40.5 24.9Mean Score 51.35 54.29 50.95 50.68 46.98 47.47 50.64

CIRP Construct: Career Related StressHigh Construct Score Group 31.5 27.8 37.1 37.3 19.3 17.8 34.7Average Construct Score Group 45.7 46.4 46.6 45.9 46.9 39.8 43.3Low Construct Score Group 22.8 25.8 16.3 16.7 33.8 42.4 22.0Mean Score 51.08 50.27 52.52 52.47 48.53 46.93 51.49

CIRP Construct: Institutional Priority—Commitment to DiversityHigh Construct Score Group 28.6 30.7 25.9 27.2 28.2 32.9 29.7Average Construct Score Group 36.6 40.4 35.4 35.0 34.1 37.2 30.1Low Construct Score Group 34.9 28.9 38.7 37.8 37.6 29.9 40.2Mean Score 49.62 50.46 48.69 49.30 49.48 50.64 49.28

60



CIRP Construct: Institutional Priority—Civic EngagementHigh Construct Score Group 25.3 20.5 22.3 29.6 27.0 36.6 27.9Average Construct Score Group 46.3 47.9 46.2 44.9 50.5 42.8 43.5Low Construct Score Group 28.4 31.6 31.4 25.5 22.5 20.6 28.6Mean Score 48.87 47.83 48.23 49.80 49.54 51.58 48.92

CIRP Construct: Institutional Priority—Increase PrestigeHigh Construct Score Group 37.9 40.1 37.3 35.4 36.8 35.1 44.2Average Construct Score Group 36.3 35.7 34.9 36.0 37.8 43.2 36.9Low Construct Score Group 25.8 24.3 27.8 28.7 25.4 21.8 18.9Mean Score 51.71 52.17 51.42 51.09 51.71 52.05 52.78

CIRP Construct: Social AgencyHigh Construct Score Group 23.6 18.0 22.2 26.2 27.3 35.5 28.2Average Construct Score Group 44.7 45.3 45.5 44.2 43.0 42.8 44.1Low Construct Score Group 31.8 36.8 32.3 29.6 29.7 21.6 27.8Mean Score 49.01 47.83 48.73 49.56 49.75 51.59 50.11

Note: CIRP Constructs have been scaled to a mean of 50 with a standard deviation of 10. “Low” represents faculty who scored one-half standard deviation or more below the mean (less than 45). “Average” represents faculty who scored within one-half standard deviation of the mean (45 to 55). “High” represents faculty who scored one-half standard deviation or more above the mean (higher than 55).

APPENDIX A

Research Methodology

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

63

The data reported here have been weighted to provide a normative picture of American college full-time undergraduate faculty. This appendix provides a brief overview of the HERI methodology and describes the procedures used to weight the 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey results to produce the national norma-tive estimates.

The National PopulationIn order to weight the HERI Faculty Survey,

we considered all institutions of higher educa-tion that admit at least 25 first-time full-time students and grant a baccalaureate degree or higher. Institutions also had to have responded to the 2009–2010 Human Resources Survey from the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). In 2010, this population included 1,553 institutions. It should be noted that the population reflects institutions of “higher education,” rather than “postsecondary education,” and that most proprietary, special vocational, or semiprofessional institutions are not currently included in the population.

Institutional Stratification DesignThe institutions identified as part of the

national population were divided into 20 strati-fication groups based on type (four-year college, university), control (public, private nonsectarian,

Roman Catholic, other religious), and selectivity (defined as the median SAT Verbal and Math scores [or ACT composite score] of the first-time, first-year students).

HERI completed a comprehensive restrati-fication of the national population in 2008, reviewing not only institutions’ selectivity scores, but also their control and religious affili-ation, if any, as reported to IPEDS. In 2010, “university” is defined by the 2010 Carnegie Basic Classification as “research universities” or “doctoral/research universities.” Appendix C lists the current stratification cell assignment of institutions that participated in the 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey.

Having defined the population in terms of the stratification cell scheme, IPEDS data was used to compute the male and female full- time undergraduate faculty (FTUG) population by academic rank (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and all other ranks) in each stratification cell. These popu-lation counts form the target counts of the weighting procedure.

Identifying the Norms SampleFor a participating institution’s data to be

included in the normative sample, HERI required that a minimum percentage of all FTUG faculty at that institution be surveyed. Participating four-year colleges were required to have surveyed at least 35% of their FTUG

faculty. Participating universities were required to have surveyed at least 20%.1

In addition to responses from participating institutions, HERI received supplemental responses from faculty at non-participating insti-tutions.2 Because the supplemental sample was based on individual respondents rather than all faculty from an institution, the standard method of inclusion in the normative sample did not apply. HERI solicited supplemental responses from randomly-selected faculty and from faculty

1 Universities faced a less stringent requirement because the IPEDS survey does not distinguish between undergraduate and graduate faculty. Since the Faculty Survey focuses on undergraduate faculty, total faculty counts for universities are inflated.

2 Invitations to participate in the survey were also sent to an additional 2,131 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty. Responses from this group are not included in the norms because they were not randomly-selected.

who had previously responded to either the 2004–2005 or the 2007–2008 Faculty Survey. In either case, only full-time faculty from four-year colleges and universities were included in the norms sample. For those in the randomly-selected population, only FTUG faculty from institutions with 10 or more responses were included in the norms sample. For those who had previously responded to the faculty survey, the respondent must have also answered all items included in the regression (see section “First Weight—Supplemental Sample of Prior Respondents,” below).

As Table A1 shows, participating institutions had a much higher participation rate (39.7%) compared to the randomly-selected faculty group (14.0%) and the supplemental sample of prior respondents from four-year institutions (23.3%).

64

Table A1. 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey—Response Count

Submitted Included Not Included Total Surveys in Norms in Norms

Participating institutions 30,956 -- 19,275 11,681

Randomly selected faculty 8,853 1,242 14.0% 687 555

Supplemental sample of prior respondentsFour-year institutions

2004–2005 HERI Faculty Survey 15,252 3,055 20.0% 2,271 7842007–2008 HERI Faculty Survey 6,553 2,027 30.9% 1,591 436Subtotal 21,805 5,082 23.3% 3,862 1,220

Supplemental sample of prior respondentsTwo-year institutions

2004–2005 HERI Faculty Survey 1,559 213 13.7% 0 2132007–2008 HERI Faculty Survey 238 60 25.2% 0 60Subtotal 1,797 273 15.2% 0 273

Targeted STEM faculty 2,131 380 17.8% 0 380

Total 37,933 -- 23,824 13,729

Note: Participating schools do not provide HERI with the total number of people asked to participate in the survey. Therefore, no total counts are available. However, based on the number of surveys submitted from FTUG faculty and the total counts of FTUG faculty from IPEDS, HERI estimates that 39.7% of FTUG faculty from participating institutions responded to the survey.Not included in Norms:– Participating institutions: 11,681 responses are not included in the norms because the institution did not meet HERI’s participation rates of 20% for universities or 35% for four-year colleges.

– Randomly-selected emails: 555 responses are not included in the norms because the responses did not come from a full-time undergraduate faculty member, or fewer than 10 responses from full-time undergraduate faculty were returned from a particular institution.

– Supplemental emails from four-year institutions: 1,220 responses are not included in the norms because the respondents were not full-time undergraduate faculty or had one or more items missing from the regression.

– Responses from two-year institutions and targeted STEM emails are not included in the norms.

65

The institutional participation rate should not be confused with response rate. An institu-tion’s response rate depends on the number of returned surveys among the faculty sampled by an institution. If an institution samples only a small proportion of its full-time undergraduate faculty, it might not meet the norms require-ments of 20% of FTUG surveyed, even if it had a very high response rate.

The 2010–2011 DataAlthough 37,933 respondents at 498 colleges

and universities returned their forms in time for their data to be included in the norms sample, the normative data presented here are based on responses from 23,824 FTUG faculty from 417 baccalaureate institutions that fit the above norms sample criteria.

In every administration of the Faculty Survey save one (1992–1993), HERI has created a supplemental sample to enhance the number of respondents from the types of institutions that participated at a lower rate than others: for example, large public colleges and universities. In addition to the 208 participating institutions, HERI received responses from faculty at 290 supplemental institutions. Table A2 shows the total number of institutions together with the total in the survey sample and norms sample for each cell by sample type. Table A3 indicates the same, but for FTUG faculty.

Weighting the SampleIn order to approximate as closely as

possible the results that would have been obtained if all college and university teaching faculty in all institutions had responded to the survey, a three-stage weighting procedure was employed.

It should be noted that the first stage of the weighting procedure is based on the assumption that the population of which the weights are an estimate is the total number of FTUG faculty at each institution. Because the supplemental sample of prior respondents was not based on institutions, a different method of producing the first-stage weight was required. In both instances, the first weight is designed to adjust for response bias either within participating institutions or within the supplemental sample. Accordingly, the discussion below breaks out the procedure by sample type.

First Weight—Participating Institutions and Randomly Selected Faculty

The FTUG faculty at each participating institution were sorted into eight categories representing combinations of gender (male or female) and rank (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and all other ranks). The ratio between the total number of faculty in the institution and the number of respondents in each category was used as the first weight. This within-institution weight, which is designed to correct for any response bias related to the gender or rank of the faculty member, adjusts the total number of respondents up to the total number of faculty at the institution.3 The same weighting methodology was applied to the supplemental sample of randomly selected faculty in the norms sample.

3 In the event that an institution did not report the distribution of its faculty across different ranks, the within-institution weight was based on gender alone.

66

Table A2. 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey—Institutions

Sample Type Included in Norms

Institution Strat Participating Supplemental Randomly Participating Supplemental Randomly Type Cell Selectivity Population Institutions Sample Selected Total Institutions Sample Selected Total

Public 1 low 800–1069 57 4 8 3 15 2 8 2 12

Universities 2 medium 1070–1150 60 8 6 1 15 7 5 1 13 3 high 1151–1600 53 3 5 1 9 2 5 1 8

Private 4 medium 800–1159 34 9 6 2 17 9 6 1 16

Universities 5 high 1160–1299 31 8 6 0 14 5 6 0 11 6 very high 1300–1600 33 2 5 5 12 1 5 4 10

Public 7,10 low 800–974 133 11 16 9 36 10 16 3 294-year 8 medium 975–1034 131 16 18 7 41 12 18 6 36Colleges 9 high 1035–1600 103 13 16 1 30 12 16 0 28

Private 11,15 low 800–999 118 5 6 4 15 5 6 1 12Nonsectarian 12 medium 1000–1084 72 8 4 10 22 6 4 4 144-year 13 high 1085–1214 72 15 12 0 27 14 12 0 26Colleges 14 very high 1215–1600 69 18 18 0 36 17 18 0 35

Catholic 16,19 low 800–984 44 3 8 5 16 3 8 0 114-year 17 medium 985–1070 53 9 9 2 20 8 9 0 17Colleges 18 high 1071–1600 53 13 11 0 24 9 11 0 20

Other 20,24 very low 800–989 136 5 9 7 21 5 9 1 15Religious 21 low 990–1034 110 9 15 12 36 8 14 3 254-year 22 medium 1035–1109 77 11 14 7 32 11 14 0 25Colleges 23 high 1110–1600 114 38 19 3 60 34 19 1 54

All Institutions 1,553 208 211 79 498 180 209 28 417

Note:– The broad categories of Institution Control (i.e., public, private, and religious affiliation) are defined by data submitted to Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (IPEDS).– Universities are those institutions defined by 2010 Carnegie Basic Classification as “Research Universities” or “Doctoral/Research Universities.”– Selectivity is based on median SAT Verbal + Math scores and/or ACT composite scores of the entering first-time freshman class as reported to IPEDS. Institutions with unknown selectivity are grouped with the low-selectivity institutions when computing National Norms. The stratification design presented here is used to group schools to develop population weights and should not be used as a measure of institutional or program quality.

– Two-year colleges are not included in the norms sample.

67

Table A3. 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey—Full-time Undergraduate Faculty

Population Included in Norms

Institution Strat Participating Supplemental Randomly Type Cell Selectivity Total Men Women Institutions Sample Selected Total

Public 1 low 800–1069 44,253 57.3% 42.7% 262 286 47 595

Universities 2 medium 1070–1150 79,543 61.7% 38.3% 1,541 203 25 1,769 3 high 1151–1600 104,673 63.9% 36.1% 757 326 54 1,137

Private 4 medium 800–1159 11,191 51.0% 49.0% 954 115 26 1,095

Universities 5 high 1160–1299 25,114 61.6% 38.4% 1,302 129 0 1,431 6 very high 1300–1600 58,709 66.4% 33.6% 170 118 238 526

Public 7,10 low 800–974 30,041 54.3% 45.7% 1,078 242 48 1,3684-year 8 medium 975–1034 37,794 53.6% 46.4% 1,483 393 119 1,995Colleges 9 high 1035–1600 33,141 56.4% 43.6% 1,766 358 0 2,124

Private 11,15 low 800–999 8,314 53.8% 46.2% 224 44 11 279Nonsectarian 12 medium 1000–1084 9,767 53.4% 46.6% 387 46 60 4934-year 13 high 1085–1214 9,605 52.3% 47.7% 940 160 0 1,100Colleges 14 very high 1215–1600 13,238 57.9% 42.1% 2,005 390 0 2,395

Catholic 16,19 low 800–984 2,723 39.1% 60.9% 166 66 0 2324-year 17 medium 985–1070 5,832 45.4% 54.6% 487 79 0 566Colleges 18 high 1071–1600 11,134 55.8% 44.2% 1,076 216 0 1,292

Other 20,24 very low 800–989 6,703 56.6% 43.4% 169 73 10 252Religious 21 low 990–1034 7,392 55.2% 44.8% 506 132 39 6774-year 22 medium 1035–1109 8,262 59.8% 40.2% 900 159 0 1,059Colleges 23 high 1110–1600 15,578 58.3% 41.7% 3,102 327 10 3,439

All Institutions 523,007 59.5% 40.5% 19,275 3,862 687 23,824

Note:– The broad categories of Institution Control (i.e., public, private, and religious affiliation) are defined by data submitted to Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (IPEDS).– Universities are those institutions defined by 2010 Carnegie Basic Classification as “Research Universities” or “Doctoral/Research Universities.”– Selectivity is based on median SAT Verbal + Math scores and/or ACT composite scores of the entering first-time freshman class as reported to IPEDS. Institutions with unknown selectivity are grouped with the low-selectivity institutions when computing National Norms. The stratification design presented here is used to group schools to develop population weights and should not be used as a measure of institutional or program quality.

–Two-year colleges are not included in the norms sample.

68

First Weight—Supplemental Sample of Prior Respondents

The creation of a first weight for the supple-mental sample of prior respondents presented a challenge and an opportunity. On the one hand, there was no formal unit of population, as was the case for the participating institutions, since membership in this sample did not depend on where the faculty member taught, but rather on the fact that he or she participated in a previous administration of the faculty survey. On the other hand, HERI did have considerable infor-mation about the 21,805 prior respondents based on the data collected from their previous participation. Using these data, profiles could be developed for those in the sampled pool.

Using logistic regression, HERI developed a regression equation that estimated the prob-ability that all prior respondents would respond to the 2010–2011 Faculty Survey. Separate regressions were computed for each of the eight gender and rank combinations. The dependent variable of the regression was whether or not the faculty responded, and the independent variables were as follows:

Race/Ethnicity American Indian/Alaska NativeAsian American/Native Hawaiian/

Pacific IslanderAfrican American/BlackHispanic (Mexican/Puerto Rican/Other Latino)White/Caucasian (reference category)OtherTwo or more race/ethnicity

Institution TypePublic universitiesPrivate universitiesPublic 4-year collegesPrivate nonsectarian 4-year colleges

(reference category)

Catholic 4-year collegesOther religious 4-year colleges

Year of AppointmentWithin past years1–5 years ago (reference category)6–10 years ago11–15 years ago16–20 years ago21–25 years ago26–30 years ago31–35 years agoMore than 35 years ago

Tenure StatusTenured (reference category)On track, but not tenuredNot on track, but institution offersNo tenure system

Overall Job SatisfactionNot applicableNot satisfiedMarginally satisfiedSatisfiedVery satisfied

After completing the regression, HERI exam-ined the supplemental sample of FTUG faculty. Using the equation developed during the regres-sion run, the likelihood that the faculty member was to respond based on his or her characteristics was computed. The reciprocal of the computed probability was used as the first weight. Thus, a respondent with an 80% probability of response would receive a weight of 1/0.8, or 1.25.

Second WeightThe second weight was designed to correct

for between-stratification cell differences in institutional participation. To develop the second set of weights, institutions were sorted

69

into 20 stratification cells based on type (four-year college, university), control (public, private- nonsectarian, Roman Catholic, other religious), and selectivity. Within each of these stratification cells, faculty in all institutions in the population were sorted into the same eight gender-by-rank categories described above.

Each cell had two values: (1) denominator, the weighted sum of the norms sample of FTUG faculty respondents; and (2) numerator, the total FTUG faculty counts from IPEDS. The ratio of the total FTUG counts and weighted respon-dent count became the second weight.

Final WeightThe third and final weight (i.e., the poststrati-

fication weight) was designed to improve the precision of the estimate beyond the product of the first and second weights. HERI determined that applying the third weight was necessary to correct for the under-sampling of newly-hired faculty.

The first step was to determine the previous distribution of FTUG faculty from the 1989 to 2004 Faculty Surveys. The distribution for the previous norms samples was based on the 432 possible combinations of the following variables:

1. Year of appointment: within past year, 1–5 years ago, 6–10 years ago, 11–15 years ago, 16–20 years ago, 21–25 years ago, 26–30 years ago, 31–35 years ago, more than 35 years ago.

2. Institution type and control: public university, private university, public 4-year college, nonsectarian 4-year college, Roman Catholic 4-year college, other religious 4-year college.

3. Rank: professor, associate professor, assis-tant professor, lecturer/instructor/other.

4. Gender: men, women.

The second step was to determine the distri-bution from the current norms sample based on the same 432 combinations noted in the first step. In both steps, the distributions were weighted by the product of the first and second weights (i.e., the response bias weight and the institution type-selectivity weight).

The final step was to adjust the 2010–2011 population to more closely approximate the distribution from previous administrations. To accomplish this, the ratio of the distributions from the first step by the second step became the third and final weight.

Defining Full-time Undergraduate FacultyOnly full-time employees who were engaged

in teaching undergraduates were included in the normative data reported here. Part-time employees, full-time researchers, or faculty members who teach only at the post graduate level have been excluded. More specifically, a respondent was included in the normative data if one of the following conditions were met:

1. Responded “yes” or did not respond as to whether they were a full-time employee (question 2) and indicated that they taught at least one undergraduate-level course (i.e., general education course, course required for undergraduate major, other undergrad-uate credit course, developmental/remedial course [not for credit], or non-credit course [other than above]—question 11a).

2. Responded “yes” that they were a full-time employee (question 2) and indicated that they primarily taught undergraduate credit courses (question 11k).

3. Did not respond that they were a full-time employee (question 2) and responded that they taught no courses this term or did not respond to the number of courses to this

70

question (question 11) and indicated that they primarily taught undergraduate credit courses (question 11k) and indicated that they were scheduled to teach nine hours or more per week during the present term (question 22).

4. Responded “yes” or did not respond as to whether they were a full-time employee (question 2) and did not respond to the number of courses that they taught this term (question 11) and did not respond as to the type of courses that they primarily teach (question 11k) and indicated that they were scheduled to teach nine hours or more per week during the present term (question 22).

CIRP ConstructsCIRP Constructs represent sets of related

survey items that measure an underlying trait or aspect of the faculty experience. Item Response Theory (IRT), a modern psychometric method that has several advantages over methods used in more traditional factor analysis, is used to create a construct score for each respondent. (Sharkness, DeAngelo, & Pryor, 2010; Sharkness & DeAngelo, 2011). Computing an individual’s construct score in IRT involves deriving a maximum likelihood score estimate based on the pattern of responses to the entire set of survey items for that construct (or to a subset of the items that were answered). Items that tap into the trait more effectively are given greater weight in the estimation process (see Table A4). A respondent’s construct score is thus not a

simple arithmetic mean or weighted sum, but rather the estimated score that is most likely, given how the faculty answered the set of items. CIRP Constructs are scored on a Z-score metric and rescaled for a mean of approximately 50 and standard deviation of 10. The low, average, and high construct score group percentages and the mean for the construct are reported here. Low scores represent faculty who are one-half stan-dard deviation below the mean. Average scores represent faculty whose scores are within one-half standard deviation of the mean. High scores represent faculty who are one-half standard deviation or more above the mean. Please visit HERI’s website for more detailed information.

CIRP Construct Technical Report:www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/constructs/ technicalreport.pdf

Faculty Survey Construct Parameters:www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/constructs/FAC2010Appendix.pdf

IRT article in Research in Higher Educationwww.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/journals/MeasuringStudentInvolvement.pdf

References

Sharkness, J., DeAngelo, L., Pryor, J. H. (2010). CIRP Construct Technical Report. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Sharkness, J., & DeAngelo, L. (2011). Measuring student involvement: A comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in the construction of scales from student surveys. Research in Higher Education, 52(5), 480–507.

www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/constructs/technicalreport.pdf

www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/constructs/technicalreport.pdf

www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/journals/MeasuringStudentInvolvement.pdf

www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/journals/MeasuringStudentInvolvement.pdf

Table A4. List of HERI Faculty Survey Constructs (including survey items and estimation “weights”)

Student-Centered Pedagogy measures the extent to which faculty use student-centered teaching and evaluation methods in their course instruction.In how many of the courses that you teach do you use each of the following?• Cooperativelearning(smallgroups)(2.30) • Reflectivewriting/journaling(1.37)• Studentpresentations(1.85) • Experientiallearning/Fieldstudies(1.30)• Groupprojects(1.82) • Usingstudentinquirytodrivelearning(1.26)• Classdiscussions(1.70) • Student-selectedtopicsforcoursecontent(1.21)• Studentevaluationsofeachothers’work(1.53)

Undergraduate Education Goal: Personal Development measures the extent to which faculty believe that personal development is a central goal for undergraduate education.Indicate the importance to you of each of the following education goals for undergraduate students:• Helpstudentsdeveloppersonalvalues(4.92) • Developmoralcharacter(2.87)• Provideforstudents’emotionaldevelopment(2.91) • Enhancestudents’self-understanding(2.65)

Scholarly Productivity is a unified measure of the scholarly activity of faculty.How many of the following have you published?• Articlesinacademicandprofessionaljournals(3.09) • Chaptersineditedvolumes(2.11)• Howmanyofyourprofessionalwritingshavebeenpublishedor

accepted for publication in the last two years (2.53)

Civic Minded Practice is a unified measure of faculty involvement in civic activities.• Collaboratedwiththelocalcommunityinresearch/teaching(1.87) • Engagedinpublicservice/professionalconsultingwithoutpay?(1.51)• Doyouuseyourscholarshiptoaddresslocalcommunityneeds?(1.78) • Communityorpublicservice(1.35)• Communityserviceaspartofcoursework(1.64) • Advisedstudentgroupsinvolvedinservice/volunteerwork(1.33)

Civic Minded Values—A unified measure of the extent to which faculty believe civic engagement is a central part of the college mission.• Encouragestudentstobecomeagentsofsocialchange(2.37) • Collegesshouldbeactivelyinvolvedinsolvingsocialproblems(1.75)• Collegesshouldencouragestudentstobeinvolvedincommunityservice • Collegeshavearesponsibilitytoworkwiththeirsurroundingcommunities

activities (2.22) to address local issues (1.64)• Instillinstudentsacommitmenttocommunityservice(2.15) • Influencingsocialvalues(1.31)

Job Satisfaction: Workplace is a unified measure of the extent to which faculty are satisfied with their working environment.How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job?• Professionalrelationshipswithotherfaculty(2.55) • Departmentalleadership(1.51)• Competencyofcolleagues(1.92) • Courseassignments(1.33)• Autonomyandindependence(1.57)

Job Satisfaction: Compensation is a unified measure of the extent to which faculty are satisfied with their compensation packages.How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job?• Opportunityforscholarlypursuits(2.18) • Teachingload(1.27)• Retirementbenefits(1.48) • Jobsecurity(1.26)• Salary(1.40) • Prospectsforcareeradvancement(1.25)

71

Table A4. List of HERI Faculty Survey Constructs (continued) (including survey items and estimation “weights”)

Career Related Stress measures the amount of stress faculty experience related to their career.Please indicate the extent to which each of the following has been a source of stress for you during the last two years:• Lackofpersonaltime(1.52) • Colleagues(1.14)• Teachingload(1.38) • Researchorpublishingdemands(1.13)• Committeework(1.25) • Self-imposedhighexpectations(1.09)• Institutionalprocedures/redtape(1.17) • Students(1.08)

Institutional Priority: Commitment to Diversity measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is committed to creating a diverse multicultural campus environment.Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university:• Tocreateadiversemulticulturalcampusenvironment(3.21) • Torecruitmoreminoritystudents(2.41)• Toincreasetherepresentationofminoritiesinthefacultyand • Toincreasetherepresentationofwomeninthefacultyand administration (3.05) administration (1.76)• Todevelopanappreciationformulticulturalism(2.79)

Institutional Priority: Civic Engagement measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is committed to facilitating civic engagement among students and faculty.Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university:• Toprovideresourcesforfacultytoengageincommunity-based • Tofacilitatestudentinvolvementincommunityservice(1.29) teaching or research (4.27)• Tocreateandsustainpartnershipswithsurroundingcommunities(2.50)

Institutional Priority: Increase Prestige measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is committed to increasing its prestige.Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university:• Toincreaseormaintaininstitutionalprestige(3.54) • Tohirefaculty“stars”(1.47)• Toenhancetheinstitution’snationalimage(3.43)

Social Agency measures the extent to which faculty value political and social involvement as a personal goal.Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following:• Participatinginacommunityactionprogram(2.32) • Helpingtopromoteracialunderstanding(1.40)• Becomingacommunityleader(1.84) • Keepinguptodatewithpoliticalaffairs(1.06)• Influencingsocialvalues(1.49)

72

APPENDIX B

2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey Questionnaire

75

2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey

NOTE: The 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey is a web-based survey and therefore this document does not reflect the web-based formatting.

1. What is your principal activity in your current position at this institution?AdministrationTeachingResearchServices to clients and patientsOther

2. Are you considered a full-time employee of your institution for at least nine months of the current academic year?

Yes No

PART-TIME FACULTYThese questions will only be included for part-time faculty.

2a. If given the choice, I would prefer to work full-time at this institution.Yes No

2b. Have you ever sought a full-time teaching position at this or another institution?Yes No

IF YES, NESTED ITEM2bi. How long ago did you pursue a full-time position?

Currently seeking a positionWithin the last year1 to 2 years ago3 to 5 years agoMore than 5 years ago

2c. My full time professional career is outside academia.Yes No

2d. In considering your reasons for teaching part-time at this institution, please indicate your agreement with the following statements:

(Responses: Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, Disagree Strongly)My part-time position is an important source of income for meCompensation is not a major consideration in my decision to teach part-timePart-time teaching is a stepping-stone to a full-time positionMy part-time position provides benefits (e.g., health insurance, retirement, etc.)

that I needTeaching part-time fits my current lifestyleFull-time positions were not availableMy expertise in my chosen profession is relevant to the course(s) I teach

2e. Mark all institutional resources available to you in your last term as part-time faculty. (Mark all that apply)

Use of private officeShared office spaceA personal computerAn email accountA phone/voicemail

2f. Please indicate your agreement with the following statements:(Responses: Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, Disagree Strongly)Part-time instructors at this institution:

Are given specific training before teachingRarely get hired into full-time positionsReceive respect from studentsAre primarily responsible for introductory classesHave no guarantee of employment securityHave access to support servicesAre compensated for advising/counseling studentsAre required to attend meetingsHave good working relationships with the administrationAre respected by full-time faculty

2g. Besides this institution, at how many other institutions do you teach (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.)?

76

3. What is your present academic rank?ProfessorAssociate ProfessorAssistant ProfessorLecturerInstructor

4. What is your tenure status at this institution?TenuredOn tenure track, but not tenuredNot on tenure track, but institution has tenure systemInstitution has no tenure system

COMMUNITY COLLEGEThese questions will only be included for community colleges, and will replace questions 3 and 4 when the survey is used by community colleges.

3. What is your current status at this institution?TenuredProbationary, Tenure TrackRenewable Contract Instructor (e.g., Adjunct)

4. What is your academic rank at this institution?Acting InstructorInstructorAssistant ProfessorAssociate ProfessorProfessorEmeritus

5. Are you currently serving in an administrative position as: (Mark all that apply)Department chairDean (Associate or Assistant)PresidentVice-PresidentProvostOtherNot Applicable

6. On the following list, please mark one in each column:Highest Degree EarnedDegree Currently Working On

Bachelor’s (B.A., B.S., etc.)Master’s (M.A., M.S., M.F.A., M.B.A., etc.)LL.B., J.D.M.D., D.D.S. (or equivalent)Other first professional degree beyond B.A. (e.g., D.D., D.V.M.)Ed.D.Ph.D.Other degreeNone

7. From what higher education institution did you receive your Bachelor’s Degree?(Please enter complete Institution Name and City)

Institution Name _________________City _________________State (Drop down) _________________Country (Drop down) _________________

8. From what higher education institution did you receive your highest degree?(Please enter complete Institution Name and City)

Institution Name _________________City _________________State (Drop down) _________________Country (Drop down) _________________

9. Personally, how important to you is:(Responses: Essential, Very Important, Somewhat Important, Not Important)ResearchTeachingService

77

10. During the past two years, have you engaged in any of the following activities?(Responses: Yes, No)Taught an honors courseTaught an interdisciplinary courseTaught an ethnic studies courseTaught a women’s studies courseTaught a service learning courseTaught an exclusively web-based course at this institutionParticipated in a teaching enhancement workshopAdvised student groups involved in service/volunteer workCollaborated with the local community in research/teachingConducted research or writing focused on:

International/global issuesRacial or ethnic minoritiesWomen and gender issues

Engaged undergraduates on your research projectWorked with undergraduates on a research projectEngaged in academic research that spans multiple disciplinesTaught a seminar for first-year studentsTaught a capstone courseTaught in a learning community (e.g., FIG, linked courses)Supervised an undergraduate thesisPublished op-ed pieces or editorialsReceived funding for your work from:

FoundationsState or federal governmentBusiness or industry

11. How many courses are you teaching this term (include all institutions at which you teach)? (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.)

IF response to question 11 is greater than or equal to one, populate 11a–11j based on response—NESTED11a–11j Course 1 (up to 10 courses)

i. Type of Course:General education courseCourse required for an undergraduate majorOther undergraduate credit courseDevelopmental/remedial course (not for credit)Non-credit course (other than above)Graduate course

ii. How many students are enrolled in this course? _____ iii. Does this course have a teaching/lab assistant or reader/grader assigned?

Yes No iv. Where do you teach this course?

At this institutionAt another institution

IF response to question 11 is 0 or Missing11k. What types of courses do you primarily teach?

Undergraduate credit coursesGraduate coursesNon-credit coursesI do not teach

12. Do you teach remedial/developmental skills in any of the following areas? (Mark all that apply)ReadingWritingMathematicsESLGeneral academic skillsOther subject areas

78

13. Have you engaged in any of the following professional development opportunities at your institution?

(Responses: Yes, No, Not eligible, Not available)Paid workshops outside the institution focused on teachingPaid sabbatical leaveTravel funds paid by the institutionInternal grants for researchTraining for administrative leadershipReceived incentives to develop new coursesReceived incentives to integrate new technology into your classroom

14. How many of the following have you published?(Responses: None, 1–2, 3–4, 5–10, 11–20, 21–50, 51+)Articles in academic or professional journalsChapters in edited volumesBooks, manuals, or monographsOther, such as patents, or computer software products

15. How many exhibitions or performances in the fine or applied arts have you presented in the last two years?

(Responses: None, 1–2, 3–4, 5–10, 11–20, 21–50, 51+)

16. How many of your professional writings have been published or accepted for publication in the last two years?

(Responses: None, 1–2, 3–4, 5–10, 11–20, 21–50, 51+)

17. Please indicate the extent to which you:(Responses: To a Great Extent, To Some Extent, Not at All)Feel that the training you received in graduate school prepared you well for your role as a

faculty memberAchieve a healthy balance between your personal life and your professional lifeExperience close alignment between your work and your personal valuesFeel that you have to work harder than your colleagues to be perceived as a

legitimate scholarMentor new faculty

18. In your interactions with undergraduates, how often do you encourage them to:(Responses: Frequently, Occasionally, Not at all)Ask questions in classSupport their opinions with a logical argumentSeek solutions to problems and explain them to othersRevise their papers to improve their writingEvaluate the quality or reliability of information they receiveTake risks for potential gainsSeek alternative solutions to a problemLook up scientific research articles and resourcesExplore topics on their own, even though it was not required for a classAccept mistakes as part of the learning processSeek feedback on their academic workIntegrate skills and knowledge from different sources and experiences

19. In how many of the courses that you teach do you use each of the following?(Responses: All, Most, Some, None)Evaluation Methods

Multiple-choice examsEssay examsShort-answer examsQuizzesWeekly essay assignmentsStudent presentationsTerm/research papersStudent evaluations of each others’ workGrading on a curveCompetency-based grading

Instructional Techniques/MethodsClass discussionsCooperative learning (small groups)Experiential learning/Field studiesTeaching assistantsRecitals/Demonstrations

79

Group projectsExtensive lecturingMultiple drafts of written workStudent-selected topics for course contentReflective writing/journalingCommunity service as part of courseworkElectronic quizzes with immediate feedback in classUsing real-life problemsUsing student inquiry to drive learning

20. Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following:(Responses: Essential, Very Important, Somewhat Important, Not Important)Becoming an authority in my fieldInfluencing the political structureInfluencing social valuesRaising a familyBecoming very well off financiallyHelping others who are in difficultyAdopting “green” practices to protect the environmentDeveloping a meaningful philosophy of lifeHelping to promote racial understandingIntegrating spirituality into my lifeMaking a theoretical contribution to scienceParticipating in a community action programKeepinguptodatewithpoliticalaffairsBecoming a community leaderMentoring the next generation of scholars

21. Indicate the importance to you of each of the following education goals for undergraduate students:

(Responses: Essential, Very Important, Somewhat Important, Not important)Develop ability to think criticallyPrepare students for employment after collegePrepare students for graduate or advanced educationDevelop moral characterProvide for students’ emotional developmentTeach students the classic works of Western civilizationHelp students develop personal valuesEnhance students’ self-understandingInstill in students a commitment to community serviceEnhance students’ knowledge of and appreciation for other racial/ethnic groupsHelp master knowledge in a disciplineDevelop creative capacitiesInstill a basic appreciation of the liberal artsPromote ability to write effectivelyHelp students evaluate the quality and reliability of informationEngage students in civil discourse around controversial issuesTeach students tolerance and respect for different beliefsEncourage students to become agents of social change

22. During the present term, how many hours per week on average do you actually spend on each of the following activities?

(Responses: None, 1–4, 5–8, 9–12, 13–16, 17–20, 21–34, 35–44, 45+)Scheduled teaching (give actual, not credit hours)Preparing for teaching (including reading student papers and grading)Advising and counseling of studentsCommittee work and meetingsOther administrationResearch and scholarly writingOther creative products/performancesConsultation with clients/patientsCommunity or public serviceOutside consulting/freelance workHousehold/childcare dutiesCommuting to campusOther employment, outside of academia

80

23. For each of the following items, please mark either Yes or No.(Responses: Yes, No)Are you a member of a faculty union?Are you a U.S. citizen?Do you plan to retire within the next three years?Do you use your scholarship to address local community needs?Have you been sexually harassed at this institution?Have you ever interrupted your professional career for more than one year for

family reasons?Have you ever received an award for outstanding teaching?Is (or was) your spouse/partner an academic?

24. During the past two years, have you:(Responses: Yes, No)Considered early retirement?Considered leaving academe for another job?Considered leaving this institution for another?Changed academic institutions?Engaged in paid consulting outside of your institution?Engaged in public service/professional consulting without pay?Received at least one firm job offer?Requested/sought an early promotion?

25. If you were to begin your career again, would you:(Responses: Definitely yes, Probably yes, Not sure, Probably no, Definitely no)Still want to come to this institution?Still want to be a college professor?

26. Indicate how well each of the following describes your college or university:(Responses: Very Descriptive, Somewhat Descriptive, Not Descriptive)It is easy for students to see faculty outside of regular office hoursThe faculty are typically at odds with campus administrationFaculty here respect each otherMost students are treated like “numbers in a book”Faculty are rewarded for being good teachersThere is respect for the expression of diverse values and beliefsFaculty are rewarded for their efforts to use instructional technologyAdministrators consider faculty concerns when making policyThe administration is open about its policies

27. Please indicate the extent to which each of the following has been a source of stress for you during the last two years:

(Responses: Extensive, Somewhat, Not at All, Not Applicable)Managing household responsibilitiesChild careCare of elderly parentMy physical healthHealth of spouse/partnerReview/promotion processSubtle discrimination (e.g., prejudice, racism, sexism)Personal financesCommittee workFaculty meetingsColleaguesStudentsResearch or publishing demandsInstitutional procedures and “red tape”Teaching loadChildren’s problemsFriction with spouse/partnerLack of personal timeKeepingupwithinformationtechnologyJob securityBeing part of a dual career coupleWorking with underprepared studentsSelf-imposed high expectationsChange in work responsibilitiesInstitutional budget cuts

81

28. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job?(Responses: Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Marginally Satisfied, Not Satisfied, Not Applicable)SalaryHealth benefitsRetirement benefitsOpportunity for scholarly pursuitsTeaching loadQuality of studentsOffice/lab spaceAutonomy and independenceProfessional relationships with other facultySocial relationships with other facultyCompetency of colleaguesJob securityDepartmental leadershipCourse assignmentsFreedom to determine course contentAvailability of child care at this institutionProspects for career advancementClerical/administrative supportOverall job satisfactionTuition remission for your children/dependents

29. Below are some statements about your college or university. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following:

(Responses: Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, Disagree Strongly)Faculty are interested in students’ personal problemsRacial and ethnic diversity should be more strongly reflected in the curriculumFaculty feel that most students are well-prepared academicallyThis institution should hire more faculty of colorThis institution should hire more women facultyStudent Affairs staff have the support and respect of facultyFaculty are committed to the welfare of this institutionFaculty here are strongly interested in the academic problems of undergraduatesThere is a lot of campus racial conflict hereMy research is valued by faculty in my departmentMy teaching is valued by faculty in my departmentFaculty of color are treated fairly hereWomen faculty are treated fairly hereGay and lesbian faculty are treated fairly hereFaculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision makingMy values are congruent with the dominant institutional valuesThis institution takes responsibility for educating underprepared studentsThe criteria for advancement and promotion decisions are clearMost of the students I teach lack the basic skills for college level workThere is adequate support for faculty development

30. Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university:(Responses: Highest Priority, High Priority, Medium Priority, Low Priority)To promote the intellectual development of studentsTo develop a sense of community among students and facultyTo facilitate student involvement in community serviceTo help students learn how to bring about change in societyTo increase or maintain institutional prestigeTo hire faculty “stars”To recruit more minority studentsTo enhance the institution’s national imageTo create a diverse multi-cultural campus environmentTo promote gender equity among facultyTo provide resources for faculty to engage in community-based teaching or researchTo create and sustain partnerships with surrounding communitiesTo pursue extramural fundingTo increase the representation of minorities in the faculty and administrationTo strengthen links with the for-profit, corporate sectorTo develop leadership ability among studentsTo increase the representation of women in the faculty and administrationTo develop an appreciation for multiculturalism

82

31. Please indicate your agreement with each of the following statements:(Responses: Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, Disagree Strongly)The chief benefit of a college education is that it increases one’s earning powerPromoting diversity leads to the admission of too many underprepared studentsColleges should be actively involved in solving social problemsColleges should encourage students to be involved in community service activitiesA racially/ethnically diverse student body enhances the educational experience of

all studentsRealistically, an individual can do little to bring about changes in societyColleges should be concerned with facilitating undergraduate students’

spiritual developmentColleges have a responsibility to work with their surrounding communities to address

local issuesPrivate funding sources often prevent researchers from being completely objective in the

conduct of their workColleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campusThis institution should not offer remedial/developmental education

32. Please enter your base institutional salary (e.g., for $56,000, please enter 56000).$_____________

33. Your base institutional salary reported above is based on:Less than 9 months9/10 months11/12 months

PART-TIME FACULTYThese questions will replace questions 32 and 33 for faculty who indicate they are part-time.

32. Please enter your total salary from teaching at this institution for this academic year (e.g., for $30,000, please enter 30000).

$_____________

33. How much are you paid per course at this institution (e.g., for $3,000, please enter 3000)?

$_____________

34. What percentage of your current year’s income comes from: (e.g., for 45%, please enter 45—total for all responses must equal 100%)

Base salary from this institution ____%Other income from this institution ____%Income from another academic institution ____%Non-academic income ____%

35. Please enter the four-digit year that each of the following occurred (e.g., 1944, 2001, etc.).Year of birth ____Year of highest degree now held ____Year of appointment at present institution ____If tenured, year tenure was awarded ____

36. Please select the most appropriate general area and disciplinary field for the following:Major of highest degree held ____Department of current faculty appointment ____

37. How many children do you have in the following age ranges?(Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4+)Under 18 years old18 years or older

38. How would you characterize your political views?Far LeftLiberalMiddle of the RoadConservativeFar Right

83

39. Are you currently: (Mark one)SingleMarriedUnmarried, living with partnerDivorcedWidowedSeparated

40. Your sex:MaleFemale

41. Is English your native language?Yes No

42. Are you: (Mark all that apply)White/CaucasianAfrican American/BlackAmerican Indian/Alaska NativeAsian American/AsianNative Hawaiian/Pacific IslanderMexican American/ChicanoPuerto RicanOther LatinoOther

43. Do you give the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) permission to retain your contact information (i.e., your email address and name) for possible follow-up research? HERI maintains strict standards of confidentiality and will not release your identifying information.

Yes NoIf “Yes,” please confirm your email address: ______________________________________

44 to 63. Local Optional Questions (20 total)(Responses: A, B, C, D, E)

84

General Area(Major/Department)

1=Agriculture/natural resources/related 2=Architecture and related services 3=Area/ethnic/cultural/gender studies 4=Arts (visual and performing) 5=Biological and biomedical sciences 6=Business/management/marketing/related 7=Communication/journalism/comm. tech 8=Computer/info sciences/support tech 9=Construction trades10=Education11=Engineering technologies/technicians12=English language and literature/letters13=Family/consumer sciences, human sciences14=Foreign languages/literature/linguistics15=Health professions/clinical sciences16=Legal professions and studies

17=Library science18=Mathematics and statistics19=Mechanical/repair technologies/techs20=Multi/interdisciplinary studies21=Parks/recreation/leisure/fitness studies22=Precision production23=Personal and culinary services24=Philosophy, religion & theology25=Physical sciences26=Psychology27=Public administration/social services28=Science technologies/technicians29=Security & protective services30=Social sciences (except psych) and history31=Transportation & materials moving32=Other

Specific Discipline(Major/Department)

0101=Agriculture and related sciences0102=Natural resources and conservation0103= Agriculture/natural resources/related,

other

0201=Architecture and related services

0301=Area/ethnic/cultural/gender studies

0401=Art history, criticism, and conservation0402=Design & applied arts0403=Drama/theatre arts and stagecraft0404=Fine and studio art0405=Music, general0406=Music history, literature, and theory0407=Commercial and advertising art0408=Dance0409=Film, video, and photographic arts0410=Visual and performing arts, other

0501=Biochem/biophysics/molecular biology0502=Botany/plant biology0503=Genetics0504=Microbiological sciences & immunology0505=Physiology, pathology & related sciences0506=Zoology/animal biology0507=Biological & biomedical sciences, other

0601=Accounting and related services0602=Business admin/management/operations0603=Business operations support/assistance0604=Finance/financial management services0605=Human resources management and svcs0606=Marketing0607= Management information systems/

services0608= Business/mgt/marketing/related, other

0701=Communication/journalism/related prgms0702= Communication technologies/technicians

and support svcs0703= Communication/journalism/comm. tech,

other

0801=Computer/info tech administration/mgmt0802=Computer programming0803=Computer science0804= Computer software and media

applications0805=Computer systems analysis0806=Computer systems networking/telecom0807=Data entry/microcomputer applications0808=Data processing0809=Information science/studies0810=Computer/info sci/support svcs, other

0901=Construction trades

1001=Curriculum and instruction1002=Educational administration/supervision1003=Educational/instructional media design1004=Special education and teaching1005=Student counseling/personnel services1006=Early childhood education and teaching1007=Elementary education and teaching1008=Secondary education and teaching1009=Adult and continuing education/teaching1010=Teacher ed: specific levels, other1011=Teacher ed: specific subject areas1012=Bilingual & multicultural education1013=Ed assessment1014=Higher education1015=Education, other

1101=Biomedical/medical engineering1102=Chemical engineering1103=Civil engineering1104=Computer engineering1105=Electrical/electronics/comms engineering1106=Engineering technologies/technicians1107=Environmental/environmental health eng1108=Mechanical engineering1109=Engineering, other

1201=English language and literature/letters

85

1301= Family/consumer sciences, human sciences

1401=Foreign languages/literature/linguistics

1501=Alternative/complementary medicine/sys1502=Chiropractic1503=Clinical/medical lab science/allied1504=Dental support services/allied1505=Dentistry1506=Health & medical administrative services1507= Allied health and medical assisting

services1508= Allied health diagnostic, intervention,

treatment professions1509=Medicine, including psychiatry1510=Mental/social health services and allied1511=Nursing1512=Optometry1513=Osteopathic medicine/osteopathy1514=Pharmacy/pharmaceutical sciences/admin1515=Podiatric medicine/podiatry1516=Public health1517=Rehabilitation & therapeutic professions1518=Veterinary medicine1519=Health/related clinical services, other

1601=Law1602=Legal support services1603=Legal professions and studies, other

1701=Library science

1801=Mathematics1802=Statistics1803=Mathematics and statistics, other

1901=Mechanical/repair technologies/techs

2001=Multi/interdisciplinary studies

2101=Parks, recreation and leisure studies2102=Health and physical education/fitness2103= Parks/recreation/leisure/fitness studies,

other

2201=Precision production

2301=Culinary arts and related services2302=Personal and culinary services2303=Personal and culinary services, other

2401=Philosophy2402=Religion/religious studies2403=Theology and religious vocations2404=Philosophy, religion & theology, other

2501=Astronomy & astrophysics2502=Atmospheric sciences and meteorology2503=Chemistry2504=Geological & earth sciences/geosciences2505=Physics2506=Physical sciences, other

2601=Behavioral psychology2602=Clinical psychology2603=Education/school psychology2604=Psychology, other

2701=Public administration2702=Social work2703=Public administration & social svcs other

2801=Science technologies/technicians

2901=Corrections2902=Criminal justice2903=Fire protection2904=Police science2905=Security and protective services, other

3001=Anthropology (except psychology)3002=Archeology3003=Criminology3004=Demography & population studies3005=Economics3006=Geography & cartography3007=History3008=International relations & affairs3009=Political science and government3010=Sociology3011=Urban studies/affairs3012=Social sciences, other

3101=Transportation and materials moving

3201=Other

APPENDIX C

Institutions Participating in the 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey

Public UniversitiesEast Carolina University NCFlorida International University* FLMiami University-Oxford* OHSouth Dakota State University* SDTexas A & M University-Corpus Christi* TXTexas Southern University TXThe University of Montana* MTUniversity of Cincinnati-Main Campus* OHUniversity of Colorado at Boulder COUniversity of Idaho* IDUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha* NEUniversity of North Dakota NDUniversity of Northern Colorado* COUniversityofOklahomaNormanCampus* OKUniversity of Rhode Island* RICleveland State University** OHFlorida State University** FLNorth Dakota State University-Main Campus** NDNorthern Arizona University** AZOakland University** MIOhio State University-Main Campus** OHPurdue University-Main Campus** INSouthern Illinois University Carbondale** ILThe University of Alabama** ALThe University of Texas at San Antonio** TXUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock** ARUniversity of California-Los Angeles** CAUniversity of California-Santa Cruz** CAUniversity of Connecticut-Storrs** CTUniversity of Louisiana at Lafayette** LAUniversity of Massachusetts-Boston** MAUniversityofMissouri-KansasCity** MOUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte** NCUniversity of Oregon** ORUniversity of Vermont** VTUtah State University** UTWayne State University** MI

Private UniversitiesAdelphi University* NYAmerican University* DCBenedictine University* ILBrigham Young University* UTCatholic University of America* DCDrexel University* PADuquesne University* PAImmaculata University* PANortheastern University* MAPace University-New York* NYPepperdine University* CAPolytechnic Institute of New York University NYRegent University* VASt. John’s University-New York* NYSyracuse University NYTufts University* MAUniversity of the Pacific CAWake Forest University NCWidener University-Main Campus* PAAnderson University** INBiola University** CABoston College** MACarnegie Mellon University** PAClark University** MAEdgewood College** WIHoward University** DCJohns Hopkins University** MDLoyola University Chicago** ILMarquette University** WIMassachusetts Institute of Technology** MARensselaer Polytechnic Institute** NYRice University** TXSaint John Fisher College** NYSaint Mary’s University of Minnesota** MNSeton Hall University** NJSouthern Methodist University** TXUniversity of Chicago** ILUniversity of Pennsylvania** PAUniversity of San Francisco** CAUniversity of Southern California** CAUniversity of St. Thomas-St. Paul** MN

89

2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey—Survey Participants

For list of participating institutions since 1989, visit www.heri.ucla.edu

*Active participants and in normative sample **Supplemental sample and in normative sample

www.heri.ucla.edu

Public 4-year CollegesCalifornia State University-Fresno* CACalifornia State University-Fullerton* CAChristopher Newport University* VACoppin State University* MDDickinson State University* NDEasternKentuckyUniversity* KYFortHaysStateUniversity* KSGeorgia College & State University* GAGrand Valley State University* MIIndiana University-Purdue University-Fort Wayne* INIndiana University-Southeast* INLander University* SCMayville State University* NDMetropolitan State University* MNMinot State University NDMissouri Western State University* MOMontclair State University NJNortheastern Illinois University ILPennsylvania State University- PA Penn State Erie-Behrend College*Ramapo College of New Jersey* NJRhode Island College* RISan Francisco State University CASan Jose State University CASoutheast Missouri State University* MOSouthern Illinois University Edwardsville ILSouthern Oregon University* ORSouthern Utah University* UTSUNY at Geneseo* NYSUNY College at Old Westbury* NYSUNY Empire State College* NYUniversity of Central Missouri* MOUniversity of North Carolina at Asheville* NCUniversity of South Carolina-Aiken* SCUniversity of Wisconsin-Green Bay* WIUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens Point* WIUtah Valley University* UTValley City State University* NDWeber State University* UTWest Texas A & M University* TXWestern Washington University* WABloomsburg University of Pennsylvania** PACalifornia State University-Bakersfield** CACalifornia State University-Los Angeles** CACalifornia State University-Northridge** CACalifornia University of Pennsylvania** PACentral Washington University** WAClarion University of Pennsylvania** PAClayton State University** GACollege of Charleston** SCColorado State University-Pueblo** COEast Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania** PAEastern Connecticut State University** CTEastern Michigan University** MI

Public 4-year CollegesEastern New Mexico University-Main Campus** NMFlorida Gulf Coast University** FLFort Lewis College** COFrostburg State University** MDHumboldt State University** CAIndianaUniversity-Kokomo** INKutztownUniversityofPennsylvania** PALincoln University of Pennsylvania** PALock Haven University** PALongwood University** VAMansfield University of Pennsylvania** PAMillersville University of Pennsylvania** PAMinnesota State University-Moorhead** MNNew College of Florida** FLNorfolk State University** VANortheasternStateUniversity** OKNorthernKentuckyUniversity** KYPurdue University-North Central Campus** INRadford University** VASaginaw Valley State University** MISaint Cloud State University** MNShippensburg University of Pennsylvania** PASlippery Rock University of Pennsylvania** PASonoma State University** CASouthern Connecticut State University** CTSUNY at Purchase College** NYTexas State University-San Marcos** TXThe Richard Stockton College of New Jersey** NJThe University of Tennessee at Chattanooga** TNTruman State University** MOUniversityofCentralOklahoma** OKUniversity of Colorado at Colorado Springs** COUniversity of Massachusetts-Dartmouth** MAUniversity of Michigan-Dearborn** MIUniversity of Michigan-Flint** MIUniversity of Minnesota-Morris** MNUniversityofNebraskaatKearney** NEUniversity of North Carolina-Wilmington** NCUniversity of Pittsburgh-Bradford** PAUniversity of South Carolina-Upstate** SCUniversity of Southern Indiana** INUniversity of West Georgia** GAUniversity of Wisconsin-Stout** WIWashburnUniversity** KSWestern Illinois University** ILWorcester State College** MA

90




www.heri.ucla.edu

Private Nonsectarian 4-year CollegesAlaskaPacificUniversity* AKAurora University* ILBryn Mawr College* PABucknell University* PACarleton College* MNCazenovia College* NYCedar Crest College* PAColorado College* CODickinson College* PAFranklin Pierce University* NHGoucher College* MDHampden-Sydney College VAHarrisburg University of Science and Technology* PAHartwick College* NYHaverford College* PAHawaii Pacific University* HIHood College* MDIllinois Wesleyan University* ILJohn Brown University* ARJuniata College* PAKenyonCollege* OHMcDaniel College* MDMedaille College* NYMills College* CANazareth College* NYOccidental College* CAPark University* MOPhiladelphia University PAPrincipia College* ILRockford College* ILSmith College* MASt. Lawrence University* NYSwarthmore College* PAThe College of Wooster* OHThe University of Tampa* FLTouro College NYTrinity College* CTUniversity of Puget Sound* WAUniversity of the Sciences in Philadelphia* PAUrsinus College PAVassar College* NYWestmont College* CAWheaton College-Norton* MAWhitman College* WAWillamette University* ORWilliams College* MAAlfred University** NYAsburyUniversity** KYBard College** NYBates College** MEBeloit College** WIBentley University** MA

Private Nonsectarian 4-year CollegesBereaCollege** KYBerry College** GAColgate University** NYDenison University** OHDrake University** IADrury University** MOFurman University** SCGrinnell College** IAHamilton College** NYHiram College** OHKalamazooCollege** MILawrence University** WILewis & Clark College** ORLong Island University-Brooklyn Campus** NYLong Island University-C W Post Campus** NYMarymount Manhattan College** NYMassachusetts College of Pharmacy and MA Health Sciences**Metropolitan College of New York** NYMinneapolis College of Art and Design** MNOberlin College** OHPacific Northwest College of Art** ORPine Manor College** MAPomona College** CARider University** NJRipon College** WIRollins College** FLRoosevelt University** ILSarah Lawrence College** NYScripps College** CAStetson University** FLSuffolk University** MATuskegee University** ALUnion College-Schenectady** NYWashington and Lee University** VAWashington College** MDWebster University** MOWestern New England College** MAWheelock College** MAWilliam Jewell College** MO

91




www.heri.ucla.edu

Catholic 4-year CollegesCabrini College* PACanisius College* NYCollege of the Holy Cross* MAFairfield University* CTKing’sCollege* PALewis University* ILLoyola College in Maryland* MDLoyola Marymount University CAMadonna University* MIMarywood University* PAMount St. Mary’s University* MDNiagara University* NYSaint Anselm College* NHSaint Mary’s College* INSaint Mary’s College of California* CASaint Norbert College* WISaint Peter’s College* NJSaint Thomas University* FLSanta Clara University CASt. Mary’s University TXUniversity of Detroit Mercy MIUniversity of Mary* NDUniversity of Scranton PAVillanova University* PAWalsh University* OHAlvernia College** PABelmont Abbey College** NCBenedictineCollege** KSChristian Brothers University** TNCollege of Saint Benedict** MNCreighton University** NEDivine Word College** IAFontbonne University** MOGeorgian Court University** NJGwynedd Mercy College** PALoyola University New Orleans** LAMarymount University** VAMount Aloysius College** PANeumann University** PANotre Dame of Maryland University** MDOhio Dominican University** OHRegis College** MASaint Joseph’s University** PASaint Leo University** FLSaint Mary-of-the-Woods College** INSaint Vincent College** PASaint Xavier University** ILSpring Hill College** ALThe College of Saint Scholastica** MNUniversity of Portland** ORUniversity of St. Francis** ILUrsuline College** OHViterbo University** WI

Other Religious 4-year CollegesAbilene Christian University* TXAgnes Scott College* GAAlbright College* PAAlma College* MIAugustana College* ILAustin College* TXAzusa Pacific University* CABethel University* MNBridgewater College* VABrigham Young University-Hawaii* HICalvin College* MICarroll University* WICentral College* IAChapman University* CACoe College* IAConcordia University-Wisconsin* WIDePauw University INDordt College* IAEarlham College* INEckerd College* FLElon University* NCFlorida Memorial University* FLGeorge Fox University* ORGettysburg College* PAGrand View University* IAGreensboro College* NCGustavus Adolphus College* MNHamline University* MNHendrix College* ARHope College* MIIllinois College* ILIowa Wesleyan College* IAJudson University* ILLakeland College* WILebanon Valley College* PALinfield College* ORLuther College* IALycoming College* PAMacalester College* MNMalone University* OHMartin Luther College* MNMount Vernon Nazarene University OHNebraska Wesleyan University* NENyack College* NYOklahomaCityUniversity OKPoint Loma Nazarene University* CARoberts Wesleyan College* NYSeattle Pacific University* WASewanee: The University of the South* TNSimpson College* IASimpson University* CASouthernNazareneUniversity* OKSt. Olaf College* MN

92




www.heri.ucla.edu

Other Religious 4-year CollegesSusquehanna University* PATaylor University* INTrinity University* TXUnion University TNUniversity of Indianapolis* INUniversity of Mary Hardin-Baylor* TXValparaiso University INVanguard University of Southern California* CAWhitworth University* WAWittenberg University* OHAlbion College** MIAllegheny College** PAAnderson University** SCAugsburg College** MNAugustana College** SDBarton College** NCBenedict College** SCBethel College** INBethune-Cookman University** FLBirmingham Southern College** ALBryan College** TNBuena Vista University** IACalifornia Baptist University** CACentreCollege** KYConcordia University-Saint Paul** MNDakota Wesleyan University** SDDefiance College** OHEast Texas Baptist University** TXEastern Mennonite University** VAElmhurst College** ILFlorida Southern College** FLGeneva College** PAGoshen College** INGreenville College** ILHuntington University** INLa Sierra University** CALee University** TNLindseyWilsonCollege** KYLyon College** ARManchester College** INMaryville College** TNMcPhersonCollege** KSMercer University-Macon** GAMidAmericaNazareneUniversity** KSMoravian College and Moravian Theological PA Seminary**Morningside College** IANorth Greenville University** SCNorth Park University** ILNorthwest University** WANorthwestern College** MNOhio Northern University** OHPalm Beach Atlantic University-West Palm Beach** FLPeace College** NC

Other Religious 4-year CollegesPresbyterian College** SCQueens University of Charlotte** NCRhodes College** TNRoanoke College** VAShenandoah University** VASouthwestern University** TXSt. Andrew’s Presbyterian College** NCTexas Lutheran University** TXThe University of Findlay** OHTrinity Christian College** ILUniversity of Dubuque** IAUniversity of Mobile** ALValley Forge Christian College** PAVirginia Wesleyan College** VAWagner College** NYWartburg College** IAWesleyan College** GAWilson College** PA

2-year CollegesBismarck State College NDCarlAlbertStateCollege OKDakota College at Bottineau NDIllinois Valley Community College ILLake Region State College NDNorth Dakota State College of Science NDSouth Texas College TXWilliston State College ND

Other InstitutionsAmerican University of BeirutHoly Family University PAPatrick Henry College VA

93




www.heri.ucla.edu

APPENDIX D

The Precision of the Normative Data and Their Comparisons

THE PRECISION OF THE NORMATIVE DATA AND THEIR COMPARISONS

97

Sample surveys commonly raise questions about the data precision, which is typically reported as the accuracy of a percentage “plus or minus x percentage points.” This figure, which is known as a confidence interval, can be estimated for items of interest if one knows the response percentage and its standard error.

Given the Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s (CIRP) large normative sample, the calculated standard error associated with any particular response percentage will be small (as will its confidence interval). It is important to note, however, that traditional methods of calcu-lating standard error assume conditions that (as is the case with most real sample survey data) do not apply here. Moreover, there are other possible sources of error that should be consid-ered when comparing data across normative groups, across related item categories, and over time. In reference to the precision of the CIRP data, these concerns include:

1) Traditional methods of calculating stan-dard error assume that the individuals were selected through simple random sampling. Given the complex stratified design of CIRP surveys, where whole institutions participate, it is likely that the actual standard errors will be somewhat larger than the standard error estimates produced through traditional computational methods. In addition, while every effort has been made to maximize the comparability of the institutional sample from year to year (repeat participation runs

about 90%), comparability is reduced by non-repeat participation and year-to-year variation in the quality of data collected by continuing institutional participants. While the CIRP stratification and weighting procedures are designed to minimize this institutional form of “response bias,” an unknown amount of non-random variation is introduced into the results.

2) The wording of some questions in the survey instrument, the text and number of response options, and their order of presentation have changed over the years. We have found that even small changes can affect order and context significantly. The exact wording and order of items on the survey instrument (see Appendix B) should be examined care-fully prior to making comparisons across survey years.

3) Substantive changes in the institutional stratification scheme were made in 1968, 1971, 1975, 2001, and 2009. These changes resulted in a revision of the weights applied to individual institutions. Stratification cell assignments of a few institutions may also change from time to time, but the scale of these changes and their effect on the national normative results are likely to be small in comparison to other sources of bias.

Since it is impractical to report statistical indicators for every percentage in every CIRP comparison group, it is important for those who are interested to be able to estimate the precision

98

Table D1. Estimated Standard Errors of Percentages for Comparison Groups of Various Sizes

Unweighted size of Percentage

comparison groups 1% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

500 .445 .975 1.342 1.597 1.789 1.936 2.049 2.133 2.191 2.225 2.236 1,000 .315 .689 .949 1.129 1.265 1.369 1.449 1.508 1.549 1.573 1.581 5,000 .141 .308 .424 .505 .566 .612 .648 .675 .693 .704 .707 10,000 .099 .218 .300 .357 .400 .433 .458 .477 .490 .497 .500 20,000 .070 .154 .212 .252 .283 .306 .324 .337 .346 .352 .354 40,000 .050 .109 .150 .179 .200 .217 .229 .238 .245 .249 .250 55,000 .042 .093 .128 .152 .171 .185 .195 .203 .209 .212 .213 70,000 .038 .082 .113 .135 .151 .164 .173 .180 .185 .188 .189 90,000 .033 .073 .100 .119 .133 .144 .153 .159 .163 .166 .167 110,000 .030 .066 .090 .108 .121 .131 .138 .144 .148 .150 .151 130,000 .028 .060 .083 .099 .111 .120 .127 .132 .136 .138 .139 240,000 .020 .044 .061 .073 .082 .088 .094 .097 .100 .102 .102

Note: Assumes simple random sampling.

of the data. Toward this end, Table D1 provides estimates of standard errors for comparison groups of various sizes and for different percent-ages1 that can be used to derive confidence interval estimates.

For example, suppose the item we are inter-ested in has a response percentage of 15.7 among students at all nonsectarian four-year colleges (a normative group that is 39,525 in size). First, we choose the column that is closest to the observed percentage of 15.7— in this case, “15%.”2 Next, we select the row closest to the unweighted sample size of 39,525—in this case “40,000.” Consulting Table D1, we find the estimated standard error would be 0.179.

To calculate the confidence interval at the 95% probability level, we multiply the estimated standard error by the critical value of t for the unweighted sample size (which, for all CIRP comparison groups, will be equal to 1.96 at the 0.05 level of probability).3 In this example, we would multiply the estimated standard error of 0.179 by 1.96, which yields 0.350. If we round this figure to a single decimal point we would then estimate our confidence interval to be 15.7 ± 0.4. In practical terms, this confidence interval means that if we were to replicate this survey using the same size sample, we would expect that the resulting percentage would fall between 15.3% and 16.1% 95 times out of 100.

1 Calculated by √x%(100–x%) where x is the percentage of interest and N is the population count from Table A1 (see Appendix A). N

2 Since the distribution of the standard errors is symmetrical around the 50% mid-point, for percentages over 50 simply subtract the percentage from 100 and use the result to select the appropriate column. For example, if the percentage we were interested in was 59, 100 – 59% yields 41, so we would use the column labeled “40%.”

3 To calculate the confidence interval at the 99% probability level the critical t value is 2.56.

99

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Sylvia Hurtado is Director of the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA and Professor in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. Dr. Hurtado has published numerous articles and books related to her primary interest in student educational outcomes, STEM education, campus climates, and diversity in higher education. She has served on many editorial boards for journals in education and served on the board of the Higher Learning Commission and National Academies’ Board of Higher Education and Work, and she is past President of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE).

Kevin Eagan is Assistant Professor in Residence and Assistant Director for Research at the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Dr. Eagan’s primary responsibility within HERI is to conduct and promote research using CIRP data to improve policy and practice in education. His research interests include issues related to undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, contingent faculty, student retention, institutional contexts and structures of opportunity, survey validity and reliability, and advanced quantitative methods.

John H. Pryor is Director of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). He is also the Managing Director of the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), where the CIRP surveys are administered. Mr. Pryor’s specific interests are in college student alcohol use, health issues, at-risk behaviors, and survey research methodology. As the Director of the CIRP surveys, he conducts longitudinal research on the changing nature of college students and the impact of college.

Hannah Whang is a doctoral student in the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, and a research analyst at the Higher Education Research Institute. Her research interests include college access and choice, transition experiences for low-income and underrepresented students at traditional postsecondary institutions, and social identity development. She earned her Ed.M. at Harvard Graduate School of Education and B.A. at Amherst College.

Serge Tran is former Associate Director of Data Management and Analysis at HERI. As the Associate Director, he maintained HERI’s research databases, computed the National Norms tables, and produced the Institutional Profile reports and other specialized reports.

PUBLICATIONS

To download reports visit the HERI publications webpage: www.heri.ucla.edu/research-publications.php

HERI Publications List (Rev 9/2012)

Completing College: Assessing Graduation Rates at Four-Year InstitutionsNovember 2011, 55 pagesProvides the latest information on four-, five-, and six-year degree attainment rates collected longitudinally from 356 baccalaureate-granting institutions. Differences by institu-tional type, gender, first-generation status, and race/ethnicity are examined. The study highlights main predictors of degree completion and provides several formulas for calculating expected institutional completion rates.

The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2011*December 2011, 71 pagesE-book with expanded tables, 175 pagesProvides national normative data on the characteristics of students attending American colleges and universities as first-time, full-time freshmen. In 2011, data from approximately 203,967 freshman students are statistically adjusted to reflect the 1.5 million students entering college. The annual report covers: demographic characteristics; expectations of college; degree goals and career plans; college finances; and attitudes, values, and life goals.*Publications from earlier years are also available.

The American Freshman: Forty Year TrendsMarch 2006, 261 pagesSummarizes trends data in the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey between 1966 and 2006. The report examines changes in the diversity of students entering college; parental income and students’ financial concerns; and issues of access and affordability in college. Trends in students’ political and social attitudes are also covered.

Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey*October 2012, 99 pagesE-book with expanded tables, 231 pagesProvides an informative profile of full-time undergraduate faculty at American colleges and universities. The 2010–2011 norms covers several areas: Faculty Work-Life, Use of Student-Centered Pedagogy, and Training the Next Generation of Faculty. The report includes a section devoted to examining the experiences and perceptions of part-time faculty as well. Results are reported by institutional type for all faculty, male faculty, and female faculty.*Publications from earlier years, under the title The American College Teacher, are also available: 2007–2008, 2004–2005, 2001–2002, 1998–1999, 1995–1996, 1992–1993, 1989–1990.

Advancing in Higher Education: A Portrait of Latina/o College Freshmen at Four-Year Institutions, 1975–2006October 2008, 90 pagesWith national data taken from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey, this report is a data resource for higher education in understanding the unique characteristics of the increasing numbers of Latina/o first-time, full-time freshmen. For the first time, CIRP trends are disaggregated by specific Latina/o ethnic origin group and by gender, to highlight the heterogeneity in the popu-lation unavailable in other national reports on Hispanic college students.

Beyond Myths: The Growth and Diversity of Asian American College Freshmen, 1971–2005September 2007, 63 pagesThe first-year student trends examined in this report help to address some common characterizations of Asian American students, particularly with respect to their educational success, that are often overstated and taken out of context. The find-ings suggest that Asian Americans still have to overcome a number of obstacles, such as levels of family income and financial aid, to earn a coveted spot in higher education. Featuring data collected from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey, it is based on 361,271 Asian/Asian American first-time full-time students who entered college between 1971 and 2005—representing the largest compilation and analysis of data on Asian American college students ever undertaken.

First in My Family: A Profile of First-Generation College Students at Four-Year Institutions Since 1971February 2007, 62 pagesFirst-generation college students are receiving increasing attention from researchers, practitioners, and policymakers who seek to understand students’ college decision-making process in order to support their progress in higher education. This report explores the changing dynamic between first-generation college students and their non-first-generation peers by utilizing longitudinal trends data collected through the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey from 1971 to 2005.

Black Undergraduates From Bakke to GrutterNovember 2005, 41 pagesSummarizes the status, trends, and prospects of Black college freshmen using data collected from 1971 to 2004 through the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). Based on more than half a million Black freshman students, the report examines gender differences; socioeconomic status; academic preparation and aspirations; and civic engagement.

www.heri.ucla.edu/research-publications.php

UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING FACULTYTHE 2010–2011 HERI FACULTY SURVEY Sylvia Hurtado | Kevin Eagan | John H. Pryor | Hannah Whang | Serge Tran

ISSN 2169-9887ISBN 978-1-878477-00-2

FacultyNorms_LTD_3c.indd 1 10/2/12 4:25 PM

:

heri fac2011-monograph

Documents

generation of faculty

faculty views

faculty trends

faculty approaches

parttime faculty work

faculty survey norms

heri faculty survey1

institutional researchheri